Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM Rondi Adamson
 

France as a Leader? Seriously?

Posted: 02/08/2013 5:25 pm

Do I really want to live in a world in which France is a moral and military leader?
I began to ask this question last July, when newly elected French President Francois Hollande spoke at a ceremony marking the 70th anniversary of the Rafle du Vel D'Hiv. The rafle, or round-up, was a mass arrest of over 13,000 French Jews carried out by the French police. Those arrested were detained -- at first -- in the Winter Velodrome (Vélodrome d'Hiver), then sent to internment camps in France and ultimately to Auschwitz. Very few returned.

It was not until 1995, more than 50 years later, that a French leader -- then President Jacques Chirac -- publically recognized French responsibility. Hollande, in 2012, took it one step further, calling the Vel D'Hiv a crime committed 'en France, par la France' -- in France, by France. Were that not enough, he reminded people that 'pas un seul soldat Allemand' -- not one German soldier -- took part.

I have a great fondness for France, having lived there five years. My first year there I was studying at the Sorbonne and working as an au pair, looking after a three-year-old girl. At that time, Klaus Barbie was being tried in France for crimes committed while he was in charge of the Gestapo in Lyon. While ironing or shaking up vinaigrette, I watched a fair bit of trial coverage (in between episodes of Mannix in French) and deduced through some ill-chosen Basil Fawlty-esque conversation starters with my little charge's maman that anything to do with the war was a potential powder-keg.

Twenty years later, tensions may have lessened, but historical compartmentalizing persists. In her 2011 book, La Seduction: How the French Play the Game of Life, Elaine Sciolino writes

An example of France's amnesia is a plaque affixed to the wall of the Hotel Lutetia, an Art Deco landmark on the Left Bank in Paris. It identifies the hotel as the reception center for returning deportees and prisoners of war in 1945; it says nothing about its sinister role between 1940 and 1944 as the Paris headquarters of the German Army's intelligence operations during the Occupation.

In short, there are likely not many votes to gain in invoking French war guilt. But Hollande did so and I thought, 'Ooh la la.' And then the French intervention in Mali began and I thought, 'Ooh la la. What do we have here?'
Someone with a spine and some moral clarity, it would seem. And yes, political savvy. France has economic interests in Mali, but I've never understood people's objections to looking out for those. Still, the intervention in Mali is primarily a humanitarian one and as such, it ought to be defended by 'progressives' (a term I hate because it would indicate the rest of us are 'regressive') everywhere. Some - such as Bernard-Henri Lévy, who has praised Hollande's courage -- are doing so.

Mali is part of the broader struggle against Islamists and the assorted thugs, mercenaries and splinter groups that are ever joining them in their alleged fight against 'colonialism' and various sizes of satans. It is a struggle that shouldn't be abandoned and maybe it will take leftist leaders to fight it. Please note the distinct lack of large anti-war protests on the streets of Western cities, at least in comparison to the past. When Republican American presidents take action against dictators or violent theocrats, far more people take umbrage.

In 2008, I predicted that a President Obama could be just the man to lead the charge in this regard and for these very reasons. So I was wrong about the 'who' of it. Sue me. I was correct that any permutation of a progressive at war would receive less grief than any permutation of a conservative.

To answer my initial question then, yes, I guess I do want to live in a world where France leads, if only because the man who should be doing so is too busy making sure health insurance plans offer free birth control to be bothered with existential threats.

Alors merci, Francois Hollande. You understand the importance of free peoples. Now, if only we could get you to understand the importance of free markets.

 

Follow Rondi Adamson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rondia

FOLLOW CANADA
 
 
  • Comments
  • 6
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gustav Hotch
Don't worry...be happy !
10:57 AM on 02/10/2013
If it wasn't for the French...USA would not exist !
12:45 AM on 02/10/2013
Funny... Inly US leadership is opossible in myopic american view... Funny, funny... Just wait China is already eating your lunch!!! Lol!!
05:30 PM on 02/09/2013
Hey Rondi, You were doing really well until the end of your piece when you wondered about making Hollande understand the importance of free markets., The truth is that people's freedoms are being undermined by your so called free markets which are only so as long as it benefits the corporate kleptocracy that now runs the entire planet. I think you should give a little more thought to that, perhaps revisit how a banking system out of control took the world to the hedge of the abyss, creating untold hardships in the process, and now holding governments everywhere by the throat. The freedom of people goes hand in hand with more strongly regulated markets. This is something Americans have a real hard time understanding, brainwashed as they are by the media which is nothing but a mouthpiece for the rich and powerful.
12:05 PM on 02/10/2013
kidcanuck there are many reasons behind the world's financial problems but the driver has been the desire of "the left" to spend more and more. You need only consider the trajectory of western countries over the past century to understand this; everywhere, social programmes have increased, unions have gained legal strength etc. In the USA the demand (by various leftist groups) for housing loans for all, did lead the banks to do things that would cause big problems in the long term and yes, the government SHOULD have put its foot down. The Bush (II) government warned early on about the risks but the DEMs et al would have none of it. Unfortunately, conservatives tend to be democratically minded and compromise.

In summary, there is blame to be spread around but you accept none of it. Of course, someone who believes that the media "is nothing but a mouthpiece for the rich and powerful" is not capable of rational thought.
10:00 AM on 02/11/2013
Greenmamba: It's pretty clear from reading your comment that you're either not familiar with what happened in the financial industry or that you're one of these right wing apologists ready to blame governments when things go bad while giving your corporate friends all the credit when things go well.  Credit rules were sabotaged not because "leftists groups" required it but because there was a lot of money to be made from the securitization of mortgages which also allowed offloading of the risk to other players.  Credit agencies shared in the party by collecting high fees to issue AAA ratings to what was in fact junk paper.  Did leftist groups caused that too?

I think perhaps you should educate yourself a little more before accusing me of being incapable of rational thought.  As for the media, most of it is controlled by large corporations, is financed  through advertising from large corporations, and gets information largely from corporate and government sources.  Must I add that in the US the government is largely controlled by corporate money?  Of course the media is a mouthpiece for the rich and powerful,  How could it not be?

Wake up buddy.
photo
Savoir Ancien
Detruit les arguments des fédéralistes
09:26 AM on 02/09/2013
Mmm..... You probably did not like the french people you have meet during the time you were in France. Sometimes. when you change culture you can feel alienated.