« Rock the Vote Is Not Non-Partisan | Home | It’s All In The Hips »

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Zut Alors!

I just got into an argument with the French consul to New England, based in Boston. Thierry Vankerk-Hoven, I believe his name was, was at Dartmouth for something or other, but my French professor sent out an e-mail last night asking some of us to meet with him.

He arrived late to the Hanover Inn, to much smirking by the predisposed among us. He gave a short talk made of generic diplomatic verbiage: “France and America have always been friends,” “We have been through a time of disagreement, but now we can work together,” “EU good. UN good,” “Cooperation good,” “I’m optimistic.”

Just standard fare, the sort of stuff everyone’s heard and that’s usually burried in section B but these days is at the fore because of Bush’s trip to Europe.

When he finished up, he asked for questions. Professor Rassias, Dartmouth’s storied language chair, jumped in with the first question. “Tell us what the real reaction was to Bush’s visit. Not the one we saw in the media.” Vankerk-Hoven disappointed with no tales of violent anti-Bushism. The question was mostly opportunity for more diplomatic babbling, which everyone pretended, I think, to appreciate. Before I forget to mention it, I should add that the consul on multiple occasions throughout the discussion specifically blasted FoxNews for promoting what he called “racism” against the French.

When he was done I asked, “Will you comment on why France, and consequently the EU, has refused to name the Islamist militant group Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.” I got more than a few stares from the consul’s assistant and Prof. Rassias, who was sitting next to her.

The consul’s answer was absolutely laughable. He went on for a while about how sensitive an issue this is in France- in an attempt, I presume, to temper his response by putting it in the context of, “Well some French people disagree”- but in the end his response was this: Hezbollah is not merely a militant organization. They are also a political organization, and thus they cannot be considered terrorists.

As far as Hezbollah is political, their only tenet is that Israel must be destroyed. To the French, whose obstruction prevented the EU from listing the group as terrorists, ‘the destruction of the Zionist state’ is simply a political objective.

A simple counter might have been, “Would France consider a British organization with the stated goal of destroying France and all of the French people, and which has successfully carried out homicidal missions in the past, but which happens to state these goals in political rhetoric, a terrorist group?” But I wasn’t feeling all that snarky.

He also spoke at length about the EU. How wonderful it is that it is getting so large of late- with so many smaller countries able to join post-Soviet Union. He always referred to the Soviet’s “sphere of influence” rather than “empire”. He marveled at the comparative power- soft-power, he said, that the EU has. His continued use of the all-encompassing Europe when talking about opposition to Bush bothered me. So much of Europe was either in favor of the war or is now coming around after seeing success in Iraq.

After this, another student asked about France’s stance on Iran- an occasion for the consul to discuss the importance of diplomacy for about 10 minutes. The consul gave a sort of closer, but then threw out this doozie: “So, what do you all think of Europe and the European Union in general?” No one volunteered right off the bat, so I picked it up. I prefaced: “My opinion won’t be indicative of most people here- but it is representative of the majority of Americans.”

I argued that the EU is an ineffectual union with the sole aim of being the world’s counterbalance to the United States. (Such fun to confound academics like this.) This objective, it seems, is only achieved through obstinate contrariness on every foreign policy issue. I noted Europe’s rather terrible track record of spreading freedom through the world- a charge successfully assumed in recent history only by America.

Prof. Rassias and the consul’s assistant chortled smugly when I said this, which was a pretty rude thing to do.

Vankerk-Hoven’s response really wasn’t one. He did continually assert that the EU isn’t meant to be a counter balance of power. He kept stressing soft-power. By that, I suppose, he meant the weight of one’s words rather than the count of arms. He said America has no soft power anymore. I interrupted. “Surely you realize that the speech you just gave on the burgeoning of the EU post-Cold War is precisely because of America’s soft and hard power.” It was Reagan who made such a union conceivable, and here France and Germany are cavorting together just to be a rock along whatever path America chooses. American power and determination that it see freedom spread- exactly what we’re doing in Iraq- is what cleared the way for the now-obstructionist EU.

At this point, I was pretty steamed. The Frenchman had little to say, except something along the lines of ‘that was then and this is now.’ Prof. Rassias jumped in, offering, “You know, they had already decided to tear down the wall before Reagan gave that speech.” Wonderful, thanks. “I know the man who wrote that.” (Peter Robinson, Dartmouth alum. He’s running for trustee and is an exceedingly nice guy.) “Yeah, but they still had already decided.”

Well, the air sort of cleared and he asked for one more question. A girl to the right of me asked, “Most French students here decide to study in France. What can we do to improve the image of Americans to the French?” There were murmurs of agreement and head-nodding from the faculty present.

“Mon dieu,” I thought.

I must add that my French professor, Brigitte Mosenthal, who I am certain disagrees with me politically, was very supportive. After the talk was over, she thanked me for livening it up. She acknowledged that everyone seems to have the same opinions at Dartmouth and so some questioning of the norm is healthy. Being as she was the one who brought me to the talk, she could have been angry that one of her students bucked the liberal hardline in front of the department chair, but she wasn’t. That was awfully big of her, and I was impressed and thankful.

Posted on February 24, 2005 12:11 PM. Permalink