# It would be dangerous for France to reintegrate in NATO



## Kirkhill (9 Apr 2008)

I stumbled across this via Spotlight on Military News.

I found a couple of the comments by Dominique de Villepin, Poet, Past Prime Minister of France and Defender of Saddam, fascinating. 

First Quote : "Not only is the return of France into NATO ('s integrated command structure, it doesn't correspond to the interests of France, but as well I believe that it is dangerous."

Second Quote : "it results in the risk of being *reduced* (emphasis added) to the Western Family (of nations presumably)."

Third Quote : "We would lose the room to manoeuvre, the margins of independence" and "*the opportunity to act unilaterally * (emphasis added) without being dragooned into a group".


So M. Villepin sees his France as not being of the West but a Free Agent that is willing to act unilaterally in its own best interests.  An interesting point of view from a country that is nuclear armed, has a military force capable of foreign adventures and has a recent history of occupation and foreign intervention.

Not that I think that that is necessarily a bad thing.  Nor do I fault l'honourable Monsieur for being a two faced advocate for his national interests while accusing the US, acting in concert with over 40 other nations of acting unilaterally.   However I am ecstatic to discover the rules of the game as interpreted by the Coterie Chirac.





> Monde / Europe
> The Associated Press - 04/06/08 à PM - 247 mots
> 
> Monde
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Apr 2008)

I wonder if it would be possible to rent the Foreign Legion as France is a free agent ?


----------



## acheo (9 Apr 2008)

> "Maintenir et augmenter ses troupes -de façon d'ailleurs fort limitée- ce n'est pas à mon sens la meilleure façon de sortir l'Afghanistan de la situation difficile dans laquelle il est. Et le risque d'enlisement est par contre extrêmement important", a-t-il estimé. "Ne nous engageons pas dans des aventures militaires qui sont dépourvues de véritables stratégies globales".



He's got a point!


----------



## Blackadder1916 (9 Apr 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Second Quote : "it results in the risk of being *reduced* (emphasis added) to the Western Family (of nations presumably)."
> 
> Third Quote : "We would lose the room to manoeuvre, the margins of independence" and "*the opportunity to act unilaterally * (emphasis added) without being dragooned into a group".
> 
> So M. Villepin sees his France as not being of the West but a Free Agent that is willing to act unilaterally in its own best interests.  An interesting point of view from a country that is nuclear armed, has a military force capable of foreign adventures and has a recent history of occupation and foreign intervention.



What the pompous and effete M. de Villepin has to say is of only mild interest, but your translation is an example of the difficulty encountered when trying to determine the intent (and nuance) of another's words when relayed through an interpreter.  "Unilateral" has acquired a somewhat negative connotation; a sense that one will do whatever they please without consideration of (and regardless of the consequences to) others.  How much different would the tone of his comments be if "act alone" or "act independently" or "act separately" or "follow our own course" were the translation.

This following article (while only mentioning de Villepin briefly) may provide a better explanation (to English speakers) of the opposition (primarily by France's left-wing but also by some of the old Gaullists) to proposals to re-intergrate into NATO military command.

Sarkozy's military plans 'put independence at risk'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/sarkozys-military-plans-put-independence-at-risk-806328.html


> France's left-wing opposition has accused President Nicolas Sarkozy of placing French "independence" at risk by seeking to rejoin Nato's integrated military command and by promising to send extra troops to Afghanistan.
> 
> Socialist, Communist and Green members of the national assembly combined to force the first vote of "censure" or "no confidence" of M. Sarkozy's presidency. Although the vote had no chance of succeeding, left-wing leaders said it was important to draw attention to a "dangerous turning point" in French foreign and defence policy.
> 
> ...


----------



## geo (9 Apr 2008)

De Villepin, Chirac, DeGaule and their type want France to be masters of their own universe (of one)... however, they were instrumental in pushing for the European Union.... anyone see a contradiction here?  So long as it suits them, yea - the minute it doesn't go their way - nay...

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Apr 2008)

Exactement Geo. Y a le monde ce qu'on a et puis le monde ce qu'on veut.  Peut etre il faut dire a M. Villepin que le Soleil etait mouri des siecles auparavant.

And Blackadder, if offer you this:

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet (or stink just the same)
Romeo and Juliet (2.2.45-7)

The rose and the ability to act independently both exist regardless of how they are perceived.



"act alone", "act independantly", "act separately" or "follow our own course" do indeed express the same ability as "act unilaterally".  And as you note " "Unilateral" has acquired a somewhat negative connotation".  Especially when it is applied to the US and in particular President Bush's admininstration.  In that connotation it has indeed come to represent "a sense that one will do whatever they please without consideration of (and regardless of the consequences to) others." 

I would suggest that that also fairly could be representative of French foreign policy under M. Villepin, M. Chirac, M. Giscard and M. de Gaulle.  They have been so determined to make up for their poor showing these past 176 years that they don't have the self-confidence to enter into an alliance of equals.

How much different in deed would  be the tone of his comments if the translation were different.  However while the perception may be different, I doubt that the sense would vary at all.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (9 Apr 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> "What's in a name? that which we call a rose
> By any other name would smell as sweet (or stink just the same)
> Romeo and Juliet (2.2.45-7)



Mais M. de Villepin a dit "d'agir seul (act alone)" et non pas "d'agir unilatéralement (act unilaterally)".  As easy as it is to fault Frenchmen of De Villepin's ilk for their view that Paris is the centre of the world, it is not necessary to put words of a different stink in their mouths to highlight that fault.  They seem to accomplish that quite well of their own accord.

As I stated before a speaker's intent and nuance can be lost when the interpreter adds his own spin to the exchange.  It reminds me of two episodes in Rwanda.  Once, after a RPA officer had spoken (ranted) with much hand gesturing at me for about five minutes the interpreter told me "he said he didn't know".  And then there was the comic opera of a patient (who spoke only Kinyarwandan) talking to an interpreter (Kinyarwandan/French) talking to me (English/sort of French/less than sort of German) talking to a nurse (German/sort of English) talking to a doctor (German).  I'm surprised anyone got anything out of that exchange.


----------



## Greymatters (10 Apr 2008)

More politics and rhetoric... many statements are made merely to appear to be in opposition to what some other leading figure has said... in the end, usually nothing worth getting worked up about...


----------

