French Socialist: Iran shouldnt have a civilian nuclear program

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Okay, I look forward to a US pol meeting with M. Le Pen, then.

If Le Pen had PMs (i.e. if we had a voting system that actually represents the people - it is outrageous that 15-20% of the electorate doesn't have a single rep), and if a US pres or hopeful was meeting with French MPs, then yes. Duh. You just don't discount a very important political force.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yup.

Not all French Jews are obsessed with the Israeli issue, at least not any more than the French public at large (it is one of the most important international issues to the French opinion, but is way behind domestic issues, such as eg purchasing power).

However, all those Jews I met who consider their Jewishness a central part of their personality (not only in terms of religion, but in terms of "nation"), have Israel as one of their top issues (usually, the top issue is Arabic antisemitism).

I differenciate between the two, by using the word "identitarian". Being Jewish doen't necessarily mean you'll have a political agenda completely unrelated to the mainstream society. Being an identitarian Jew does mean that your political agenda focuses on your Jewish community (rather than, say, your French community).
It's not the same, and it would be a mistake to consider all Jews to be strongly focused on the Jewish community.

Judaism is historically not just a religion, it is an identity, a civilization even. Of course assimilation in the West has led to Jews suppressing a part of their identity. Thats fine, thats their choice, even if I have problems with it. But the Jews who have embraced their full identity, are hardly ipso facto extremists - they are taking an approach thats quite normal in terms of the dilemmas and debates that have taken place in modern Jewry. And its also quite possible to integrate a political agenda that focuses on Israel, with one that focuses ones agenda as part of a social class, a citizen of a city or region, or a larger national agenda. Or even an agenda as a European, I would think. In the EU everyone has at least two identities - why should it be so odd that a Jew also identifies with Israel?

If youre only trying to make a distinction to explain French politics, thats fine. It sounded from you language that you were implying something wrong, or even traitorous about Jews who make Israel a key political issue - or at least suggesting that they are extremists - here in the US there are Jewish who are activists for "Peace Now" Their political agenda is certainly very tied to Israel - would you call them extremists?

[Spiffor]

Okay, I was talking too much from my perspective in the last posts, and I wasn't explaining the French political context enough.

In France, we have a diplomatic practice of talking with everybody, including the bad guys, when we want to settle a problem.
This is why we talked with Milosevic.
This is why we wanted to further talk with Saddam.
This is why we talk with Ivory Coast's president Laurent Gbagbo.
This is why we talked with Arafat.
This is why we push for making Hezbollah and Hamas into talking partners, despite them stinking (especially Hamas).

In France, the rule of thumb is that a policy based solely on violence and ultimatums is not only bad (we don't like wars), but it's also stupid. Violence should be only the last resort. That's why there was a near-consensus about Chirac's Iraqi policy, for example (something like 80% support, and unlike the massive American support to the war, I know no Frenchman ashamed of having opposed the war to begin with).

While this rule is largely mainstream in France*, many people make an exception for someone. Many IvoryCoastians living in France are outraged that we talk with the rebels (and I'm sure some French people from Northern IvoryCoast are outraged that we speak with Gbagbo). In general, many Africans hate the fact that we do talk with African kleptocrats or tyrants. OTOH, I haven't heard of our Africans massively rejecting our Iraq policy.

The same can be said for most communities or political currents that have an international pet peeve. If Pinochet was still in power, the Commies would be horrified by any official talks with him, despite us supporting open talks with Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and other such bad guys.

I wouldn't say there's a really active, constructed support to this diplomatic practice in the French public opinion. Diplomacy is rarely a topic of public debate in France, except when it touches someone's pet peeve. IMO, the ability to talk even with the bad guys is perceived as a sign of the necessary pragmatism and serenity a prez should have.

However, while the support from the population is mostly passive, I suspect there is a very active support for this practice among our diplomats. Especially on the issue of terrorism. In Europe, nationalistic terrorism was usually fought harshly to no effect, and it usually calmed down after talks.
In France, we have a striking example with New Caledonia, where the Kanak native population became increasingly unruly in the 1980's, and where the govt was increasingly repressive. In the early 1990's, the new govt organized talks with most political actors in New Caledonia (including the ZOMFG EVIL Kanak Liberation Front). And the situation got almost immediately much much better. New Caledonia is now slowly taking the path of independence, maybe. In any case, it is now extremely autonomous, and the debate is fairly serene there now.
Now, don't get me wrong, absolutely nobody in the broad French audience cares about New Caledonia (the referendum that changed our constitution, in order to realize the conclusion of the talks, had an abysmal turnout). However, this experience, coupled with the Northern Ireland experience, and the utter failure of the Algerian govt to stop the civil war waged by terrorists (and then citizen militias), have probably strongly affected an entire generation of diplomats.


*There are some people outright opposed to this practice, who think we should be much more firm and moral in our foreign policy. I'm almost sure Bernard-Henry Levy is a spearhead of this movement, and I think Glucksmann is among them too. Free-marketeer politician Alain Madelin is there as well.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Okay, I was talking too much from my perspective in the last posts, and I wasn't explaining the French political context enough.

In France, we have a diplomatic practice of talking with everybody, including the bad guys, when we want to settle a problem.
This is why we talked with Milosevic.
This is why we wanted to further talk with Saddam.
This is why we talk with Ivory Coast's president Laurent Gbagbo.
This is why we talked with Arafat.
This is why we push for making Hezbollah and Hamas into talking partners, despite them stinking (especially Hamas).

Fortunately France HAS maintained the diplo and financial boycott of Hamas, as that boycott seems to be the driving force behind Abbas' moves to change the political situation in the Pal territories. However those moves have yet to bear fruit, so perhaps its wise to withhold judgement.

[Krill]

[q=Spiffor]In France, the rule of thumb is that a policy based solely on violence and ultimatums is not only bad (we don't like wars), but it's also stupid.[/q]


Hmm. Explains alot...

[Fake Boris]

it explains why they sirrendr LOl

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
In France, we have a striking example with New Caledonia, where the Kanak native population became increasingly unruly in the 1980's, and where the govt was increasingly repressive. In the early 1990's, the new govt organized talks with most political actors in New Caledonia (including the ZOMFG EVIL Kanak Liberation Front). And the situation got almost immediately much much better. New Caledonia is now slowly taking the path of independence, maybe. In any case, it is now extremely autonomous, and the debate is fairly serene there now.
Now, don't get me wrong, absolutely nobody in the broad French audience cares about New Caledonia (the referendum that changed our constitution, in order to realize the conclusion of the talks, had an abysmal turnout). However, this experience, coupled with the Northern Ireland experience, and the utter failure of the Algerian govt to stop the civil war waged by terrorists (and then citizen militias), have probably strongly affected an entire generation of diplomats.

The govt of France talked with a group in one of Frances territories. And a group that was NOT terrorists. And in NI the Good Friday agreeement resulted from talks among all parties including the NI Protestants/Unionists.

Dont you see that theres a difference, when theres a conflict between A and B, between advocating talks between A and B, and having C hold talks with B, without the consent of A, despite B refusing to talk to A, or even to recognize A's existence? Without wanting Godwinize, thats the Munich problem. B tries to use talks with C to avoid talking to its actual adversary in the conflict, and to get C to "deliver" A. Now maybe sometimes thats justified, but its a different issue.


Im wondering if France ever negotiated with Paul Kagame, before he won, over the heads of France's Rwandan Hutu allies.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This is why we talked with Arafat.

Israel talked with Arafat for 9 years. This, according to some, is what led to the war that broke out in 2001 (the 2nd intifadah).

[lord of the mark]

In any case, I made the OP to discuss Royals position on Iran, not her strategy for negotiating in Lebanon.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Diadem
Civilian nuclear programs simply should not exist.

Nuclear fission was a bad idea to begin with, and has not improved much over the years. Got a bit saver, but it's still risky. In fact global terrorism adds a new factor to the risk. Meanwhile the basic problems (nuclear waste, lack of uranium to make a significant contribution to world energy supply, etc) are still the same.

The risks of nuclear waste and meltdown is way overblown by nutty luddite types. The amount of nuclear waste produced is practically harmess compared to all the global warming-causing CO2 released by coal plants. Oh, and the "we don't have enough uranium" is nothing but a nucleophobe lie based on BS assumptions.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In any case, I made the OP to discuss Royals position on Iran, not her strategy for negotiating in Lebanon.

Well, it did really make it to the news here as well. Seems that Iran will be one of the most important international issues during this election, because that's one where there's gonna be a debate.

Royal is the only (potential) world leader who has such a position, not even shared by the US or Israel. Sarkozy, at least for the time being, is on the side of the non-proliferation treaty.

Other potential issues are just : Everybody agrees that Darfur is bad, and that we should use harsh language (well, maybe the issue will stick if a candidate promises a unilateral war on Sudan, but I just can't imagine that). We should promote sustainable development and democracy in Africa, yada yada yada...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Well, it did really make it to the news here as well. Seems that Iran will be one of the most important international issues during this election, because that's one where there's gonna be a debate.

Royal is the only (potential) world leader who has such a position, not even shared by the US or Israel. Sarkozy, at least for the time being, is on the side of the non-proliferation treaty.

Other potential issues are just : Everybody agrees that Darfur is bad, and that we should use harsh language (well, maybe the issue will stick if a candidate promises a unilateral war on Sudan, but I just can't imagine that). We should promote sustainable development and democracy in Africa, yada yada yada...

The US and Israel are willing to allow a civ nuke industry in Iran, as long as it doesnt make its own enriched fuel. Iran insists on its right to make fuel, for all kinds of made up reasons, but everyone knows its cause they really want a bomb, and (pace French fission power love) they really dont need nuclear electricity. Like most oil producers, theyve got plenty of natural gas thats difficult to ship, that they could use at home. So it seems to me that Royal is just expressing the logical result (how French) of what everyone knows. I have no doubt in office she will retreat to the no enrichment stance - but this indicates she will be firm about that position.

I would think there would still be domestic issues between Royal and Sarkozy - while IIUC shes pretty third wayish, wouldnt that still set her apart from Sarko on the economy? And then the whole law and order thingie.

Of course as a Commie I wouldnt expect you to emphasize the difference between the PS and the right Do we have a French PS supporter here?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I also have a problem with allowing the lead terrorism sponsoring state to make any steps towards nuclearization.

But we already have nukes.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I would think there would still be domestic issues between Royal and Sarkozy - while IIUC shes pretty third wayish, wouldnt that still set her apart from Sarko on the economy? And then the whole law and order thingie.

Yes, there are quite a bit of domestic issues on which they're going to disagree (though they're both aiming for the centre at the moment, and thus have a fairly similar speech right now).

My smiley was about international issues. It's something that rarely sparks much debate in France, except the Middle East. And since both candidates are fairly pro-Israeli by French standards, there won't even be much debate about that.

Of course as a Commie I wouldnt expect you to emphasize the difference between the PS and the right Do we have a French PS supporter here?

I don't know. You might want to see if Davout or LDiCesare support a party.