Stardate 20040116.1309

(On Screen): The French are engaged in yet another attempt to mend fences with the US, and once again it becomes clear that they'll be happy to forgive us if only we'll admit that we were wrong.

de Villepin is yet again emphasizing just how close the friendship of the two nations really is. Chirac is emphasizing once again that France was right and the US was wrong.

The French are scandalized by a recent book written by Richard Perl and David Frum, who among other things say that Chirac volunteered as Saddam Hussein's most important ally and protector. AFP's newswire reported that story with the headline Bush Iraq war advisors advise cutting military ties to France, but a few minutes later thought better, and released it again. The story remained the same, but the headline was changed to Bush Iraq war advisors launch tirade against France.

There seems to be a subtle difference in the impact of those two, but maybe I'm overreacting in my unsophisticated American way. Perhaps there's some nuance I'm missing.

Or perhaps not. Maybe it's just ongoing French pique.

Anyway, the French are once again making noises about maybe helping out in Iraq. They don't want to make such an offer openly and unambiguously, since they'd look (even more) like fools if it were rejected, so instead they're dangling the possibility like a fishing lure in a pond, hoping for a strike. For example, they're talking about the possibility of helping to train Iraqi policemen. (After all, French police are world-renowned for their efficiency and effectiveness at fighting crime.)

And they might be willing to send troops to Iraq (as part of a UN peacekeeping force authorized by a UNSC resolution, and only after the US fully transfers sovereignty to an Iraqi government). Maybe not, though. See, the idea is to give the impression that they could be talked around, without openly making any offers that could be refused. It's something a French hooker would understand: making an offer without really offering; leaving it all subtle and implied, so that if it is turned down you can pretend there was never really an offer in the first place. It's all about sophisticated nuances.

In a major diplomatic gesture, the French Minister of Defense, Michele Alliot-Marie, visited the US today as part of the ongoing effort by the French to patch up the relationship. I believe she's the highest official from the French government to visit the US government since combat began last year in Iraq. She was here mainly to visit Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and in general to make nice.

But I guess she couldn't restrain herself. She also made a speech in which she claimed that America had aspirations for economic, cultural and political supremacy in the world, which aspirations she also condemned. (It's not reported whether she used the word hyperpuissance.) She commented, more in sorrow than in anger, about the general way that France seemed to be viewed in America:

Overall, Alliot-Marie's message was one of working together with the United States on international security.

"It is something of a paradox that France should sometimes be stigmatized in Washington as a strategic adversary of the United States," the minister said.

"To listen to some quarters, France is supposed to be trying to develop a counterweight to the United States, especially through European integration," she said. "Nothing strikes me as being further from reality."

Well, some quarters suggesting such a French goal are former French government officials who have written explicitly about that goal in the open press in Europe.

Alliot-Marie also discussed the "root cause" of the war:

Outlining the views of France, she said while terrorism is a great threat, its causes must be addressed, which she identified as "the sense of frustration in the face of injustice and poverty."

"The humiliation is exploited by fanatics," Alliot-Marie said, while urging "let us work together to eradicate blind violence, but also its roots."

Yes, terrorism is caused by Arab frustration and anger. But it doesn't derive from injustice and poverty. They're frustrated because of failure and incompetence (about which I wrote two days ago).

Injustice is unquestionably a part of the problem, but it is not interna