Somewhere, USA: In your story you stated that Bush gave Chirac some books at their meeting. Are such public gift exchanges common at these meetings? What other gifts were exchanged between the leaders? Thank you.

Keith Richburg: Yes, exchanging gifts among leaders is very common. You may recall that such gifts caused a small scandal at the end of President Clinton's term, when questions were raised as to which gifts were personal, and which belonged to the White House. In many cases, the gifts can be quite expensive. Chirac, for example, sent Tony Blair three bottles of rather expensive French wine for Blair's 50th birthday -- a kind of peace offering since the two battled over Iraq.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: Keith, you wrote in a story last week that Chirac was poised to remain a thorn in the side of America power when he went into the meeting with Bush. Why is it a surprise that the reception between the two was chilly? What on earth can Bush do to warm up to leader who has publicly stated that America's dominance must be curtailed?

washingtonpost.com: Chirac Seems Intent on Challenging U.S. Foreign Policy (Post, May 31)

Keith Richburg:
I suppose we did expect the initial meeting would be chilly. But there is a lot at stake on both sides, and a lot of areas outside Iraq where America and France need to work together -- and are working together. For example, French and American troops are working side-by-side right now in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. And Chirac's position on wanting to curtail American power is not necessarily some off-the-wall position, but one that a lot of average Europeans support.

________________________________________________

Arlington, Va.: Why did President Bush leave the G-8 early? Was this a snub or a legitimate schedule conflict? How are the rest of the G-8 participants taking it?

Keith Richburg:
Well, the White House would tell you it is because of his tight schedule, and the need to get to the Middle East. But the Mideast meeting was set well after the G-8, and Bush is the president -- the Mideast parties would have waited for him an extra day. So his early departure is being interpreted here not only as a snub to Chirac, but an indication that he doesn't take these meetings, or this organization, all that seriously.

________________________________________________

Vienna, Va.: I am not impressed with the way President Bush is treating Chirac. Bush is being FAR too kind to him and to the Germans. If it were up to the French and Germans, Saddam would STILL be in power.
The sad truth is that the French and Germans have made their beds and it is high time now for them to lie in it, but Bush is not making them do so. By NOT doing so he is showing gross irresponsibility, perhaps for the first time in his presidency.
Bush, at the very least, should announce a trade embargo and recall our French and German ambassadors until both countries formally apologize for their actions at the U.N. and admit that they were not only wrong but unnecessarily obstructive.
If this affects the economy, so be it -- sometimes you have to put principle above politics.

Keith Richburg: Well, that's one position. But the fact remains that the U.S. needs to work with France and Germany on a lot of issues, like terrorism. Don't forget, Germany rounded up a lot of Al Qaeda operatives, especially in Hamburg, and has had the world's first prosecution related to 9/11. France, too, has been working closely with U.S. intelligence. And they both contribute troops to the Afghanistan operation. Also, it's hard in this time of trade liberalization to "punish" any individual country economically, without breaking various trade rules. Besides, the French and Germans would say; "Punish us for what? For disagreeing with you and voting the way we wanted at the U.N.?"

________________________________________________

San Jose, Calif.: Have the G-8 leaders come up with any statement or plan in regards to the falling dollar and/or rising euro? The president's declarations notwithstanding, I suspect the Bush administration favors a weaker dollar to help boost exports. Your thoughts?

Keith Richburg: A lot of people agree. The Italians, among others, said Bush at a private meeting said he supported a strong dollar. But the official U.S. position is still that the markets set the rate. Many here suspect that the weaker dollar may be helping American jobs in the export industry, and coming before the 2004 election, that may not be a bad thing.

________________________________________________

Arlington, Va.: So what has the reaction in Europe been to the G-8 summit? What exactly did they do?

Keith Richburg: These meetings are always vague in substance. They did make major pledges to help Africa, to fight poverty, to do more on world hunger. Many NGOs call it lip service. They say more is needed. But I think these meetings have become so scripted, it's hard to find any real "news" since everyone agrees beforehand to agree. So Europe will see it as a success, if only because Bush and Chirac smiled and shook hands.

________________________________________________

Alexandria, Va. : Has the G-8 become a security issues body? I thought they were to deal specifically with monetary policy?

Keith Richburg:
Indeed, you might call it "mission creep." They have begun talking more and more on a broader range of issues -- terrorism, nuclear proliferation. But as Chirac says, this meeting really lacks "legitimacy." It's original role was simply to have the world's biggest economies coordinate their economic and finance policies. Now they've become annual forums to hash out all the world's issues.

________________________________________________

Somewhere, USA: How has Bush and Putin's meeting been received?

Keith Richburg: Bush and Putin seem to have moved beyond Iraq and are back to looking into each other souls. It appears the U.S. really does have a strategy of "Forgive Russia, Isolate Germany, Punish France."

________________________________________________

New York, N.Y.: What has the French press said about the meeting?

Keith Richburg:
The French press is focusing a lot on Chirac's African initiative and his success in bringing other third world countries around the table for informal meetings -- a change they hope will be adopted to keep the G-8 relevant for the future. They are also focusing a lot on the Chirac-Bush dynamic.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: What is it like in Evian?

Keith Richburg:
It's a beautiful place, on the lake, but unfortunately locked down with security fences and helicopters all over. I'd love to come back, when it's normal!

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: It seems ro me that biggest insult to Chirac was Bush's comments about and meeting with Putin. As if to say, Russia matters and its in our interest to reconcile. France on the other hand, does not, so we won't. (Germany too, for that matter.) Is that accurate?

Keith Richburg: Indeed. As I said, it seems to be forgive Russia, isolate Germany, punish France. I think the administration is upset not so much that France opposed the U.S. on Iraq, but actively worked to line up votes against the U.S., like de Villepin going to Africa to lobby security council members.

________________________________________________

Re: Vienna, Va.: There were two overriding reasons to attack Iraq:
1. WMD. Let's take the administration at its word. Saddam stashed umpteen thousand litres of anthrax et al. So where are they? I'm not feeling terribly secure after that war.
2. Democracy. But it looks like the Americans are choosing 25 people to run the country, according to today's reports. Sounds like the way Bush got into office. Not the ideal political system, I'd say.
So, it looks like France and Germany were right. Mind you, I thought Chirac was singularly unpleasant, as is his usual modus operandi, but seriously, we should punish them for calling our bluff?

Keith Richburg:
Are you from the French embassy? No, seriously, a lot of French officials and others are saying the same thing -- a kind of, "why should we apologize, we were right" attitude. Also, they really believe that the threat of terrorism has increased, not decreased, because of the war. And where ARE those weapons, anyway?

________________________________________________

Arlington, Va.: What sort of access do members of the press get during these meetings? And what sort of impact have the protesters had? Any?

Keith Richburg:
The press has been more restricted here than at any other meeting of its kind I know of. We are being kept miles away from the actual meeting. The protesters, too. The reason they trashed Geneva is they couldn't get near the summit site itself.

________________________________________________

Maryland: How do other countries in Europe feel about France and Chirac? Is he well respected?

Keith Richburg:
Depends on who you ask. A lot of countries feel France acts arrogantly in the world. But most Europeans agreed with France in being opposed to the war. Many feel France had its own interests at stake, but they agree France was taking a principled position. Only in Britain, where support for the war is strongest, is Chirac held in very low esteem. Anti-Europe sentiment in Britian is running very high now, which will affect their joining the Euro.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: Forgive my ignorance, but how were the eight nations picked?

Keith Richburg:
Well, they kind of picked each other. And it's really 7 plus Russia. Originally, it was supposed to be the world's largest economies -- meaning the US, Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, France and Britain. They added Russia because Russia has nuclear weapons and is on the Security Council. Now there's an argument for adding China, which has the world's fastest-growing economy. And why not South Korea?

________________________________________________

Reston, Va.: An informational question: are there any Cold War era U.S. troops still stationed in Western Europe? If so, is the withdrawal of these troops being seriously considered by the U.S. government or been a topic of discussion in Europe? Seems to me that if the France's and Germany's of the world are nervous about what they perceive is our eagerness to use force to achieve questionable ends, then they should be more then willing to use their own resources to defend their own nations.

Keith Richburg: Yes, there are many troops still stationed in Europe, mostly in Germany, and Rumsfeld has talked about moving some of them, maybe to Eastern Europe, or at least to areas closer to where they would likely be used. The odds of a war in Europe are remote, but we still maintain huge bases here. I think countries would see a draw-down as a sign that America is disengaging from Atlantic security. But some kind of shift seems inevitable.

________________________________________________

Arlington, Va.: What's easier, covering Somali warlords or the G-8? I know, very similar personalities.

Keith Richburg:
Well, at least with the Somalis, they don't have press secretaries and spin doctors, and you can get right up to the action without having to wear a press badge. But here the food is better.

________________________________________________

Somewhere, USA: Mr. Chirac said -- "I have no doubt whatsoever that the multipolar vision of the world that I have defended for some time is certainly supported by a large majority of countries throughout the world."

Translated -- I am determined to challenge U.S. power and I will rally the world to do it.

Two questions, how can Americans really work in good faith with the French? Imagine if our officially stated goals were to weaken French power? Secondly, those how can those who still tout the simplistic view that the U.S. is mad at France because it can't tolerate those who don't agree with them still believe this the French continue to just be poor victims of U.S. bullying?

Keith Richburg: Well, a lot of Bush admin folks would agree with you, that it's hard to work with an ally who has stated as a goal the desire to limit your power. But as I said, there are a lot of areas where the two do agree and must work together. And, yes, the dispute does go deeper than simple bullying -- there are serious divisions over how the two countries see the world.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: The invited Third World leaders must have a complicated and somewhat cynical view of Chirac's posturing to be the new champion of the developing world, don't you think? Especially the Africans, at whose expense France continues its selfish agricultural policies.

Keith Richburg:
A lot of people here at this meeting -- NGOs, African journalists, -- are asking to see concrete results, not just more "action plans." Chirac said some important words tonight; "Africa is adrift." And he is promising to make the developed world focus on problems like hunger. But again, the proof will come in the action, not the plan. And we'll see if Chirac pursues his agenda after the summit ends.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: What were the protesters like this time? They sort of morphed into anti-war protests for awhile, but now that the Iraq invasion is over are they back to anti-globalization?

Keith Richburg:
It's a hodge-podge of the usual suspects in many cases. They are anti-globalizationists, in most cases. But there are also local agendas at play, like French unions worried about pension reforms. And of course there are the ubiquitous anarchists and "black block" guys who smash bank windows.

________________________________________________

The person who supported France: I'm not French! How dare you say so? Just kidding; I'm a good American, though I do go to University in Britain. (I chose it because it's in the coalition of the willing.)
I seriously do think the problem is not one of intelligence failure or even willful misuse of intelligence to support a political end. It's that our intelligence thought that all those weapons existed, and I'm seriously scared that they're right. Frankly, I'd heave a sigh of relief if Colin Powell came out and said "don't worry, it was all a heap of malarkey." The Europeans around here (and the press) are more focused on the lying question. Is there any talk you hear from people who trust the intelligence and are scared to death by the lack of weapons?

Keith Richburg:
Well, no one knows, and it depends on which side you were on. The anti-war side says, "Ah-ha, see, it was all a pretext." The other side says the weapons were probably hidden. Or destroyed. A big question is, if Saddam had this stuff, why did he lose his country and never use a single one of them. What was he saving them for, a rainy day?

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: Everything I've heard about G-8 points to it being a European/American club for the economic elites. Is there any impetus to admit representation from Africa or Asia, who are undoubtedly impacted by the policies adopted by this group?

Keith Richburg: Well, that's exactly what Chirac has done, inviting a dozen other countries to attend. China and India are here, due to their huge populations. From Africa, we have Nigeria, South Africa, Senega and Algeria (from North Africa). Chirac wants to institutionalize this and have others invited for future G-8s. I have heard the Bush team wants to trim it down.

________________________________________________

Arlington, Va.: A few months ago France condemned what they felt were inaccurate statements coming out of the Bush administration. What has come of this? Was this story reported in the French press?

Keith Richburg:
The story was very much reported here. The Bush team denied any such campaign was taking place. But, funny, those unnamed sources suddenly stopped leaking bad stuff about the French.

________________________________________________

Somewhere, USA: Is the G-8 little more than a debating club? Does the organization hold any power?

Does it do anything as an entity besides talk?

Keith Richburg:
It is basically just a talking club. It has no real power, or even organization. But it is supposed to be a way for the world's big guys to coordinate policy on financial matters that affect the rest of the world. Their statements carry some weight, do to their economic power. But it's not the U.N. or NATO or that kind of group.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: What has the response been from the new invited countries? Do they get to play an active role or just sit and listen?

Keith Richburg: Apparently there was a pretty free-flowing exchange at dinner sunday night. Most of them thought it was worthwhile and want it to continue.

________________________________________________

Somewhere, USA: Chirac has to prove his seriousness regarding helping the developing world. What about Bush? The recent signing of the law giving money to fight HIV/AIDS seems to have been well received. What about what is perceived as America's general disinterest in the developing world except when the country feels threatened (e.g., Iraq), such as our inaction during the Rwandan genocide and other fighting in Africa, and human rights abuses in several countries that are part of the "coalition of the willing?"

Keith Richburg: That sounds more like a comment than a question, but many people would agree, the U.S. and Bush need to do more to demonstrate real concern about the developing world. This administration has focused on trade with Africa. But there are a lot of conflicts crying out for mediation, Congo for example, where the French are getting involved. The new U.S. AIDS money is a step in the right direction, but only a step. As someone once said, a gazelle running from a lion is taking steps in the right direction.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: Does their seem to be any irony, hypocrisy or other sort of contradiction in the fact that on the one hand Chirac is saying the G8 is an an improperly exclusive club that we must broaden, while on the other hand most of his international influence resides in that other arificially exclusive club, the UN Security Council?

Keith Richburg:
I'm shocked-- SHOCKED -- that you would accuse the French president of making a contradictory or hypocritical statement.

________________________________________________

Alexandria, Va.: Has anything surprised you during your "visit?"

Keith Richburg: Mainly how restricted the press is here. There is no ability to hobnob with officials in the corridors since we are being kept so far away. And the way these things are covered surprised me -- some 6,000 accredited journalists for what is essentially a talking shop.

________________________________________________

Freeport, Tex.: In your opinion who would be considered more arrogant from a world view, Bush or Chirac?

Keith Richburg:
Not sure I want to answer that one. I'm sure it depends on which side of the Atlantic you are on. But it reminds me of a joke -- you know the world has gone upside down when the world's best golfer is black, the world's best rapper is white, the tallest basketball player is Chinese, the French are accusing the Americans of arrogance, and the Germans are reluctant to go to war.

________________________________________________

Keith Richburg: Okay, thanks everyone for those thought-provoking questions. Cheers, Keith

________________________________________________

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay Tuned to Live Online:
• 2 p.m. Travel Talk: The Post's Travel Section staff with trip tips
• 2 p.m. Digital Camera Guide: Rob Pegoraro
• 6 p.m. The Starry Eye: Astrologer Charlene Lichtenstein

Full Week's Schedule

Keep up with the best Live Online has to offer and special breaking news discussions. Sign up for the Live Online e-mail newsletter.

________________________________________________

Automatically Update Page    |   Get New Responses   |   Submit Question