Relations between the United States and France have deteriorate as France remains opposed to current U.S. action in Iraq. Brandeis professors -- experts in French history and politics -- answer the following questions: Is France justified in its opposition? Is America over-reacting? Is the hostility reflective of a general distrust or animosity between the two countries? Will lack of French support effect the U.S. war effort?Professor George Ross (POL) -- Educated in Paris, partly by Jacques Chirac, has written several books on French and European politics.

* I think Saddam Hussein is a murderer, a dictator, a brute. So does Jacques Chirac. (But) Chirac believes that the U.N. Resolution 1441 was not about regime changing in Iraq, but about disarmament. It did not authorize war. The disarmament of Iraq -- which he claims was the point of Resolution 1441 -- given the threat of force -- was working. Chirac and others wanted to continue, for a while at least ... The Bush administration was determined to pursue its war plans, no matter what anyone else thought, and pursued its diplomacy in the U.N. like cowboys.

* The French are not pacifists. The French have all the experience in the world with terrorism on their own territory; it's not as if they can't understand 9/11. They're not yellow-bellied people who don't want to use force. In fact, right as we speak, they have military troops in Africa. But they wanted war only in the last instance. There is disagreement on what the last instance is.

*America's declared need for war does not fall under NATO guidelines. Under NATO, you're supposed to go to the aid of allies if they're under direct attack (Article V of the NATO Treaty). In a strict legal sense, we don't fit that right now. The administration has no proof of the link to 9/11. People mention solidarity, but solidarity is not automatic. We are calling upon the French to follow our lead in a new strategy against the "axis of evil," and the French don't agree with that strategy.

* Nobody's got their fingers clean in this region of the world. There is a French foreign policy in the Middle East; they've been involved in Lebanon and Syria ... The French did a lot of business with the Iraqis -- before and during Saddam, but they were succeeded by the U.S. and Britain. When Iraq went to war against Iran, the U.S. supported Iraq. We created this monster just as much, or more, than anyone else, including the French.

* There has been a chronic history of France wanting to assert Europe's independence over superpowers. It goes back to Charles De Gaulle and the Gaullist movement, which began during World War II. De Gaulle was one of the leaders of French resistance; the U.S. did not support him. De Gaulle was not happy with this and developed a sense of distrust of Americans. The French public did as well. De Gaulle left power in 1946, and when he returned in 1958, he said, "We don't agree with the Yalta agreements; we think that France should have an independent place between two superpowers." He kicked the NATO headquarters out of Paris.

The opposition to the current war is Chirac's first real strident enunciation of this position ... Europe is not subservient or subordinate to the U.S. Europe needs to possess its own identity. The French don't like to be told what to do; personally, I don't see any reason they should be.

* If there's a real strategic core, it's to put France in a position where it will have strong strategic influence over the European Union. The Germans were the first to say they didn't want this war; this resonated with public opinion. Mr. Chirac saw this as an opportunity ... The coalitions that will really count are France/Germany and Spain/England. Chirac is as much motivated by these concerns.

* The current American reaction -- for instance "freedom fries" -- is really sad. I saw a sign today in Waltham that said "No French Whine." It's easy to be angry at the French. Whenever something like this happens, people become "anti-." The French don't like the Americans very much either. It's part of their national identity, and it comes out in times of stress. I remember in the 1960s we weren't supposed to eat French bread. The whole climate of opinion in the U.S. is very volatile because of Sept. 11.

* If we set unilateralist precedent, then our actions might be used against us. If we justify preemptive war, others may do the same in the future. This may start a new era of having to act before it really happens. China is growing economically; if China decides to attack Taiwan, or India attacks Pakistan, current actions will justify preemptive war. We need to cherish the foundations of multilateralism.

* We're probably going out of our way more than France would to minimize civilian casualties ... But if it looks like the war is massacring, it will not go down well in Europe. The U.S. has a militaristic reputation. If that is confirmed, there will be a lot of resentment. A bad war in Iraq could really do damage.

* It's a really weird relationship; it always has been. The French have an image of themselves as beacons of universal ideas. They have a sense of French awareness; we have American awareness. Those kinds of things clash. The French have paid their dues; they have a right to have their say. We feel the same way, and it flares up. There's nothing that galvanizes the French people like standing up to the U.S. They love it.



Professor Paul Jankowski (HIST) -- Lived in France and Switzerland for much of his life. Currently working on a book about political scandals in French history from Middle Ages to present.

* The French view is not unreasonable or ridiculous. The case made by French and many others that the resort to force was mature was not intrinsically unreasonable or ridiculous. They never ruled out the use of force; they merely asked for more time while the inspections still seemed to be generating results. In the past two weeks though Chirac's immoderate threats to veto anything that might authorize force now seem to me to have been unhelpful and even destructive.

* U.S. bears a certain amount of responsibility for how France responded. While recent French diplomacy looks flawed, U.S. diplomacy looks catastrophic. Much of the crisis between the U.S. and the U.K. on one side and France and others on the other could have been avoided if the administration had acted differently in the beginning some 18 months ago: Instead of leaking to the press that we were considering war with Iraq, the U.S. could have consulted them first, before going public (with the plans). If they had told them these are the options we face ... the crisis might not have been avoided, but might have been more manageable. For the U.S. then to have said publicly, as it did, that 'when war starts, they'll all fall in line' was adding insult to injury: It takes their views for granted, treated them like troublesome domestic pets.

* There is nothing inevitable in how France is responding to the U.S. There are at least two (historical) examples when France vocally supported the U.S. During the cold war France tried to adopt a more independent position than the U.S., ... and used their independency to support the U.S. in times of crisis ... People like Henry Kissinger were admirers of French foreign policy.

During Cuban Missile Crisis, de Gaulle supported the U.S. immediately. In 1982, during the intermediate range nuclear missile confrontation with the U.S.S.R. in Europe, President Francois Mitterrand of France vocally supported the U.S. position, and while there were violent demonstrations against the U.S. in England, Holland and Germany, there were none in France. (And) in the 1991 Gulf War, the French sent in their troops to help the U.S.

* While there is anti-American sentiment (in France), I'm surprised by how much anti-French mentality there is in America. There is some hypocrisy in the way France shifted the discussion from Iraq to America. They're nervous about becoming the follower of a superpower ... Who's the enemy: Bush or Hussein? But I am appalled by the American media, especially television. Anti-French jokes about the French being militarily useless, a country which always folds, a country which is congenitally ungrateful, etc. etc., are not only historically false; they mark the abdication by the media of its mission to inform, its conscious pandering to popular prejudice, and are one more instance of the contagion of sycophancy which has been spreading across the media, even before 9/11.

* The French have done some damage. Militarily speaking, the U.S. won't be hurt (by French opposition) at all. What does hurt the U.S. is to have found itself so much more isolated on the world stage than in 9/11. The French demonstrated that neither they nor other American allies can be taken for Granted. But the French aren't the only ones. I'm surprised that French have been singled out, but they did somewhat lead this opposition.

* French trade with the U.S. is far more important to them than that with Iraq. And even though they have some important investments in Iraq, these would more plausibly induce them to support the U.S. with a view to keeping a hand in when Saddam's regime (ends).



Professor Eugene Black (HIST) -- Has taught and written on modern European history for over 40 years, including a regular course on the French Revolution. He has lectured and published in France.

* It is France's business, not ours, if the French are justified in their opposition of war. France looks upon itself as an independent country. It had a history of being a top dog. Now it's less powerful, less of a voice -- and conscious of that. This heightens France's sensitivity. We must be aware that on some issues, countries agree, and on some, not. The interests of France may not best be served by being subservient to the U.S. ...The French interests are best served by this Franco-German core. The French don't want to be led around by the nose.

* The French are not taking this position merely to oppose the United States; they acknowledge the help we've given them, but want to think for themselves. Email jibes are passed around, saying "Those wretched French. We saved their butts and now they stick it to us." It's not that they've forgotten what we did or that they're less grateful. The point is that they still look upon themselves as a culture with rich tradition, and in that there is much to be said.

* The French would think very seriously about anything that the U.S. proposes, but will not be treated as second-class citizens by anyone. They are particularly offended by someone who does not have a sensitivity to French interests.

For instance, if I started demeaning and hectoring you, you might not go along with what I'm saying. I certainly would not advance my cause by putting you down.

* Many Americans are overreacting in their current attitudes towards the French. There is a surprising amount of American antipathy that flows over the internet, talk shows, and popular media. The acerbic quality springs in considerable measure from frustration -- we did not get our way -- reinforced by real and fancied grievances -- articulate and semi-articulate -- Americans have experienced while travelling through or living in France. Suddenly they are given an outlet of a valid form. It's a psychological getting-even for insults or humiliation we think we've suffered at the hands of the French.

* Chirac's refusal to support war was dependent on the fact that U.S. troops were already stationed in Iraq. If Saddam actually deploys a weapon, the French will not have a great deal of trouble bouncing in to be part of the fray ... Once the U.S. ground force working up to a quarter million troops was in place, there was going to be fighting. The force led Hussein to trickle out concessions. At the same time, the U.S. could not have that much naval and ground power in place and bring it back home without achieving proclaimed objectives ... The French said they wanted 30 more days; they could have said 30 years -- it would mean nothing if the U.S. wasn't there. The French were relying on us so they could take positions they knew they wouldn't have to take the responsibility of defending. They could take positions that looked good in the U.N. ... Once you "depend" on other people, they are free agents who depend far less on you ... We have discovered to our annoyance that the French put what they conceive to be their national interests ahead of toeing an American line.

*There is French resentment of the American policy and the way we've conducted policy. Most of the criticism is of American insensitivity, especially with longstanding tradition of friendships. That certainly has been an area that lacked diplomacy, though it is characteristic of Mr. Bush's presidency.

Bush uses a high degree of unilateralism: 'don't talk to them, tell them.' This resonates with people in the U.S. We believe we should tell people what we feel. This is an issue on which people can honestly disagree. But I think it's important that no one is in favor of letting Saddam run loose.

*The U.S. has an easier capacity to deal with the U.K. than it does with France. It also has an easier capacity to deal with Germany than with France. We have a substantial Germanic background; we share the German work ethic. The British might also argue more in common with Germany than with France -- despite historical events to the contrary.