America At War:
France and the War
With James Cohen
Professor of Political Science
Friday, Nov. 9, 2001; 3 p.m. EST

On Tuesday, President Bush met with French President Jacques Chirac to discuss European support in the war against terrorism. In the meeting Chirac assured Bush of France's willingness to commit military forces and ground troops in Afghanistan. However, Chirac also expressed the European public's concern about civilian casualties by military airstrikes. Read the full story, Bush Seeks European Support (Post, Nov. 7, 2001).

James Cohen, professor of political science at the University of Paris-VIII (Saint-Denis, France), was online Friday, Nov. 9, at 3 p.m. EST, to discuss France's involvement in the war and European concern of civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Springfield, Va.: I was in Paris on Sept 11-15.
Both the French government and the French people were very supportive (thank you), the French people seemed to think that "it couldn't happen here." Since Al Qaeda had already targeted the Eifel Tower, don't you think that they are naive to be so supportive (e.g. the Arab institute in the heart of Paris seems to be a den of revolutionaires bent on the destruction of the west while the west nestles them to their heart?-anyway, you get the picture)

James Cohen: Excuse me, but I am a regular visitor to the art exhibits and film series at the Institute of the Arab World, and it's anything but a den of revolutionaries. As for the other part of your question, France has experience with terrorism and is naturally supportive of the US. That support, however, is not absolute. It is critical support, and in recent days some of the criticisms have been aired openly, in conversation between Mr. Chirac and Mr. Bush.

Boston, Mass.: In the past France has played an opportunist role within the Western fold. Trading with Iraq or stopping supplies of weapons to Israel in the middle of the 1967 war are two examples. What can France be meaningfully relied on to do in the context of the coalition against terrorism?

James Cohen: The straight answer to your question, Boston (I'm a native of Springfield) is that France's contact with the Arab world and its experience in dealing with Arab regimes, Arab peoples and Arab culture, are a great asset for understanding what the situation is in that part of the world. Being a dual national of the US and France, I often wish the US administration would take a hint sometimes from certain countries who are closer to the Arab world than itself.

Annandale, Va.: Several years ago, weren't there bombings throughout Paris which killed many people? If I remember correctly (and tell me if I don't), didn't it turn out the bombers were Iranian terrorists who had some connection to the Iranian government? If so, why didn't France declare war on Iran? Even when their own citizens are killed, the French government's reaction seem more muted than one might expect.

James Cohen: France in the past 15 years has had to deal with terrorism from various sources, including Iranian and Lebanese... Why not go to war? Well, the French view, and it's not just in France that this view is held - some good American friends are on the same wavelength -- is that replying to terror with terror can be a major trap. The French response to terror has indeed been more muted, and more centered on police investigations and undercover work than on promoting more confrontation among nations.

Rockville, Md.: Prof. Cohen, I'm sure no one likes to see civilian casualties, but what is the feeling of the French about the more than 5,000 people who were murdered by the terrorists and by association, the individuals who support them in Afghanistan? What do you think the reaction of the French would be if a plane had hit the Eiffel Tower? Or Versailles? What about the Taliban who are using civilians as shields?

James Cohen: French opinion has in general been very supportive of the US and of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks (how many thousand dead? that's another question!!). I am sure of one thing: had something similar happened in France -- something on that scale -- France would probably have tried to organize a European- and UN-based response, and would not necessarily have gone to war in that sense that the Bush administration has done. This is speculation, but it's interesting to wonder about...

Houston, Texas: How has France's Muslim North African population been reacting to the U.S. bombing? Have racial tensions between North African French and others been inflamed at all by the whole episode, and have xenophobes like Le Pen's National Front been exploiting the situation?

James Cohen: Good question. Here's my take: first, having recently met with groups of youth of North African origin in Paris' industrial suburbs, I can tell you that there are a lot of youth who see the war as an anti-Arab, even an anti-Muslim war. I'm not sure to what extent the authorities are aware of the disaffection of this sector of opinion. These youth complain -- and here I can understand them -- that being made to observe 3 minutes of silence for victims in the US is well and good... but, they say, what of the many victims in Palestine? What of the victims of the Iraqi embargo? These are real problems, though they don't appear as such on the radar screen of US mainstream opinion. The racist far-right has not been heard much lately. Le Pen's party has stayed discreet because it is internally divided between those who are mostly anti-Arab and those who are mostly against US hegemony. The other right-wing racist party, Bruno Megret's splitoff from the National Front, has been more vociferous in its anti-Arab slogans, but fortunately (I can't hide my opinion here), they represent next to nothing in percentage of national opinion.

Vienna, Austria: Sir,
For the first time in recent years, France does not take a leading role in an international conflict. Besides some domestic reasons - the rivalry between President and Prime Minister and the forthcoming elections, the Muslim population - has France's geopolitical thinking of "grandeur" finally turned out as old-fashioned in the world after september 11th? Markus

James Cohen: France is certainly not taking a leading role, although President Chirac is trying hard and has managed to log two meetings with George Bush Jr. Chirac, who is no doubt doing a little grandstanding in view of the approaching presidential election, has taken France a good ways along the road to "coalition" with the US. But Chirac also has reservations, regarding the US treatment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for example, as well as the handling of imminent humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan. Chirac of course is not alone: even Tony Blair has his problems with the Bush strategy... This is only a partial answer, very sorry, but you have in effect asked 3-4 questions in one...

Alexandria, Va.: The representative to the European Parlaiment from Normandy gave an interview in which he stated that European governments tend to be hostile to Israel for four reasons:

(1) large domestic Islamic populations;

(2) sincere belief in the Palestinian cause;

(3) a desire to have a position which differs from the American one;

(4) residual anti-Semitism

Which if any of these four factors play a significant role in what some perceive as the French government's coolness towards Israel?

James Cohen: France is not cool to Israel!! France is cool to Israel policy, and there's a big difference. It is not a question of aiming to please the local Arab population, but rather an attempt to speak a common language to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Anti-Semitism is not a problem either, because there are lots of people who are critical of Israeli policy without having the slightest touch of anti-Semitism. Desire to differ from the Americans? I think that at this point French leaders, left and right, would be delighted to see the US change its position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; they would love to have a US partner they could support on this issue. But there are real differences. And France is not alone in expressing them. Britain too (see the latest news coming out of London regarding the Blair government's strong reservations on US policy...) Sincere belief in the Palestinian cause? Why not? Since this cause, up to now, has been one of sovereignty and independence, and that goal can be accomplished without detriment to Israel. It just hasn't been tried yet!!

Columbia, Md.: Since at times the French seem to be only reluctant allies of the US, Do you think there's any chance France will join with Great Britain, Germany, and Japan and offer military support in our fight against terrorism or will they only go so far as to offer moral support?
Thanks

James Cohen: I think my earlier reply to you disappeared into cyberspace... I'll try again. In short, France's support is more than just "moral", it is logistical and involves intelligence support as well in Afghanistan. It's true that France's support is not absolute and unconditional (nor is Britain's for that matter), and there are some reasons for this. Fear in particular that the US strategy is going nowhere, could result in humanitarian disaster very soon in Afghanistan with the onset of winter; fear that the relative negligence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could lead to further alienation of Arab opinion, including moderate opinion; fear that more civilian deaths in Afghanistan could also deprive the US of any remaining support in the Arab world. Which, in French thinking -- and I share this point of view -- is a recipe for disaster, because it could turn the conflict into one that has cultural, ethnic and religious connotations, and not just because Ben Laden says so!! The question is not just how great European support is, but how great it should be given the strategy that's been adopted...

Washington, D.C.: What in your view could the French government do to reduce the disaffection of its Arab-descended population? I am aware, having been a frequent visitor to the Muslim-populated areas of La Goutte d'Or and Saint-Denis, that this is an old question, and one that has not been adequately or imaginatively dealt with when the stakes were purely domestic. What about now, when they no longer are?

James Cohen: France's policies are very contradictory in this department. There is a new and recent effort to combat ethnic and racial discrimination in the workplace (without affirmative action, which wouldn't work here...). There is a new and important effort to bring Islam into the fold of organized religions in France and give it an official status. This is happening, and it's positive. The problem is that international conflicts like the present one create mistrust between the government and a fairly large number of youth of North African descent who see the war as being directed against Muslims as such, and who can't understand why they should have to observe 3 minutes of silence for the victims in NY, but not those in Iraq or Palestine. Which, after all, makes sense: isn't there a double standard here? I know that's not a popular view in the states, but I'm American too and I think this needs to be addressed.

Former Marseillais: What can the rest of the Western world learn from France's experience in attempting to integrate a large Arab/Muslim population? From what I've seen and heard recently it seems that at this point France and, to a lesser degree, the other Western European countries, have failed.

Most Americans, raised on the notion of a melting pot, assume that integration/assimilation is inevitable even if it may be a long and bumpy ride. Looking at France, I think that it might be time to reconsider this assumption. Do you feel French society is progressing (as when a multi-ethnic national team wins the World Cup) or fighting a losing battle (as when the gendarmes concede certain quartiers to disenfranchised youth)?

Allez l'OM!

James Cohen: Hi, My considered view after living in France for over 25 years, is that the French formula for integrating people of different origins is in principle a pretty good one: a citizen is a citizen, regardless of origins; everyone is free to practice his or her religion, no single religious view has official approval. Islam is finding its way slowly but surely, and with some backlash, into the French religious landscape. This will happen; it's only a matter of time. And France is getting more and more used to a diverse image of itself. Zinedine Zidane, the soccer player of Algerian origin, is everyone's hero here. However, the current international conflict is a source of growing mistrust between lots of disaffected youth (I've spoken to a few recently) and the government.

Gaithersburg, Md.: Mr Cohen, thanks for fielding questions on this topic. Was there any effort by the Bush administration to form an alliance with clerics who condemned the attacks on Sept 11? I think a multi-prong attack on the terrorist organizations -- instead of a simple reactionary and military one -- would have alleviated the anti-Muslim, anti-Islam rhetoric which is spreading right now.

James Cohen: I'm not sure which clerics you refer to, but I agree with your second statement: a reponse that is purely military is bound to fail. And a reponse that fails to take into account the full spectrum of opinion in the Arab and Muslim world is also bound to fail, or at least to provoke increasing international polarization. That's a source of fear in many places in Europe, and I, frankly, share that fear.

San Francisco, Calif.: French Special Forces are extremely effective. Are they being used or will they be?

James Cohen: From the press here you gather that France's direct contribution to the operations is mostly a question of intelligence support, including people and hardware (spy planes and the like). It's fairly modest in scale. By definition, their operations on the ground are not exposed to much publicity, but my impression is that there are a few operations actually taking place and about 2000 people all told who play a large or small role in French forces.

Fredericksburg, Va.: Many countries have told America they support us and the fight against terroism. What exactly are they doing? Because besides a few, I haven't really noticed anything significant.

James Cohen: To answer your question, look first at Great Britain. Perfect ally, right? No need to suspect British motives, right? And yet recent news from London indicates increasing exasperation within the Blair government at US blindness to the urgency of finding and imposing a solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The question is not: who's supporting us, but rather what overall view of the situation is their support based on? Because one can strongly support the principle of combatting terrorism, and one can strongly condemn the attacks on Sept. 11th, without taking the current US strategy as the be-all and end-all of strategies to combat terrorism.

Washington, D.C.: Why is it, that I get the feeling, that each speech made by foreign leaders is an attempt to find a way out of fighting terrorism. Isn't 10 of thousands of lives enough worldwide? Or do we have to wait for another Germany mess before leaders wake up?

James Cohen: I'll reply as directly as I can: the great conflagration that you fear is not such a remote possibility, but I sincerely hope the US does not provoke it. No, there are plenty of leaders in the world who support the principle of combatting terrorism and who condemn the attacks on Sept. 11th, but who don't think the current US strategy is so ideal. I think there needs to be a lot more international concertation on how to get the job done, and how to do so without pushing the world into an absurd polarization between the "West" and "Islam". This is a recipe for disaster. From what I read today, this view is not so terribly radical... even the Blair government holds it. Let's not be paranoid: the UK is a close US ally, and if they have problems with the current strategy, maybe we should listen...

Grub street, Minn: James Cohen: If you were to define the charactar of Sharon, would you call him A: Scoundrel...B: Gangster...C: Murderer...D: Saint?

And as a footnote, can you recommend a good French Merlot, in the peasant bracket, pricewise, please? Thanks ...

James Cohen: Sharon in my book is pretty much of a scoundrel, but don't quote me. I'd rather live to share the bottle of wine with you. For 40 Francs you can do pretty well.

Alexandria, Va.: Sir,

It seems that the current U.S. Administration's approach, to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, compared to previous administrations, is one of disengagement. In addition to "critical support" of U.S. actions against terrorism, how can France and Europe assist in finding a solution to the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

James Cohen: Good question! Yes, until Sept. 11th the Bush administration was extremely disengaged. Although Mr. Bush has declared recently and emphatically that there is no link between Sept. 11th and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you better believe there is a link, and various declarations by Mr. Powell have shown that a sector of the administration at least is aware of the link. How can Europe help? In various ways, by bringing together the parties and creating an atmosphere of constructive dialogue perhaps better than the US can do at this late date. But the US needs, in that case, to let Europe more into the picture. In Europe there is more support than in the US for taking strong measures to prevent Israel from expanding its colonies in the territories; for recognizing a Palestinian state; for giving that state enough oxygen to become viable, etc. The record since the Oslo agreements of 1993 seems to show that successive US administrations have been slow to learn this lesson. It's a tough subject, I don't want you to think that I'm comfortable in reducing it to a few quick formula, but you get the gist...

Gullsgate: James Cohen: What is your opinion of Cheney going into the closet or cold storage the minute a new terrorism report is broadcast?

Do you think Somali immigrants are unduly being scapegoated with international money exchanges being closed down and inspected? Now all international money exchanges and those who use them will be on a future list ... do our banking systems benefit with new-enlisted customers?

Will Israeli-Americans, Vietnamese-Americans, Chinese and Mexican Americans who send money back home to support their families or friends ... will they all be on the suspect list next?

Is the administration "doing what has to be done" here, or over-reacting? ... your perspective please? Thank you.

James Cohen: I can't answer your question in full detail, but in response to the last part of it... I'd hesitate to talk of over-reaction, because the attacks of Sept. 11th were horrendous, but I think there's ample room to discuss the nature of that reaction. Is the current US strategy compatible with civil liberties? I see there's no small amount of debate on the subject, and I personally have my doubts about some of the detentions which seem rather arbitrary. Not much information is coming out about them either. I'll defer to experts on civil liberties to answer this more fully; I'm just giving you a reaction here...

Washington, D.C.: What do you make of the very direct, not to say suspicious and at times almost hostile, tone of the questions you have been asked? It seems this hostility is hardly directed at you, in the ambiguous position of dual nationality, but rather at what questioners perceive to be France's uncertain support of the U.S. Is this just another example of Franco-American misunderstanding, a grand tradition dating back to Jefferson's day, in which both sides view the other in terms which have far more to do with their domestic needs than with reality in the other country? Or is there something else, particularly post-September 11, going on here?

James Cohen: I perceive lots of doubt in US opinion regarding the evil intentions of the US' closest allies. I don't think there's such a need to be suspicious. I'm in favor of an open debate about the strategy being pursued, and even Tony Blair is letting it be known that he thinks that strategy has its severe limits. Living in France and being a dual national, I find rather pitiful certain media takes on France in the states. What a weird country! Why can't they be just like us? Regarding Sept. 11th, I think the degree of moral support for the victims of the attacks is immense and often effusive in France; but this doesn't necessarily lead to full agreement about the strategy adopted. Did I answer you?

Longview, Wash.: Good afternoon.

The Post's introduction of you stated that you were concerned with civilian casualities.

I, too, am.

Would you favor a temporary halt to the bombings to allow relief organizations to bring supplies in before the onset of Afghanistan's harsh winter?

I firmly believe that if two million innocent Afghans die of starvation as a result of us refusing to halt the bombings, even temporarily, then we are as bad as the terrorists themselves and we have crossed the line from a just war to blind revenge.

Thank you for allowing my question and rant.

James Cohen: The Post's introduction was in reference to French policy, not my own opinion. But regarding the question of a potential humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan, I believe there's a real problem, which may point up other weaknesses as well in the strategy that's been adopted. I hope you and others keep ranting...

James Cohen: I'm terribly sorry not to have been able to field all the questions asked this afternoon (evening Paris time!), but I tried to take a good sample of what came at me. I see there's a wide variety of Post readers out there, but the prevailing tendency among the people whose questions I fielded was to question or doubt the sincerity of French and European intentions in supporting the policy adopted by the Bush administration. I've tried to point out, as best I can, that this strategy may itself be the problem. Because I can attest that there are lots and lots of French and European people who condemn the attacks of Sept. 11th and don't consider the struggle against terrorism a laughing matter; and yet, there are doubts about where the current strategy is leading. I'm all in favor of more frank trans-Atlantic discussion of these issues. Good afternoon!!

Gaithersburg, Md.: Mr Cohen, I asked the question about the clerics earlier. I was referring to the Muslim faith/spiritual advisors (we Methodists refer to them as Ministers). Few have publiclly spoken about Mr. bin Laden using the Koran as a shield to pad the backlash against terrorist acts. In trying to keep my question short, clarity was lost and I apologize for having to restate the question.

James Cohen: In France at least, Muslim leaders have not hesitated to take their distance from Bin Laden. Using religion as a pretext for armed struggle is not the prevailing trend among French Muslims. But there is also concern that whatever proof exists against Bin Laden has not been made sufficiently clear to the public.

Washington, D.C: In what way do you think the French government is "closer" -- as you just said -- to Muslim governments? And what leaf, precisely, should the U.S. take from France's book of dealings with them? I ask because I can only imagine how your statements must look from the North African point of view: we are after all talking about a country which colonized a significant portion of the Muslim world.

James Cohen: Yes, France colonized North Africa, but since the days of De Gaulle France has come a long way in finding dialogue with Arab countries and expressing its appreciation of Arab cultures. France has credibility in the Arab world mostly, I would say (too keep it brief) because of its relatively balanced treatment of the Israeli-Palestinian question. This would need further substantiation, but it will have to do for now...

Arlington, Va.: As a U.S. citizen, I cannot understand why our nation is bombing the life out of an exceptionally poor nation just to "get" one man. To what extent do you see the U.S. "war against terrorism" causing political instability in such nations as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia? Could not the world spiral into anarchy and global depression, unless the U.S. acts with more wisdom?

James Cohen: I agree with the basic premises of your question and with the apprehension that underlies them.

   |      |