Lessons that Hollande
failed to learn from Bush’s
blunders
By Ramzy Baroud
January 22, 2015 "ICH"
- "Middle
East Eye"
- Francois Hollande is not a popular
president. No matter how hard the
“socialist” leader tries to impress, there
never seems to be a solid constituency that
backs him. He attempted to mask his initial
lack of experience in foreign affairs with a
war in Mali, after his country
enthusiastically took on Libya. While he
succeeded at launching wars, he failed at
managing their consequences as the latest
attacks in Paris have demonstrated.
Following the attack on
satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, he is now
attempting to ride a wave of popularity
among his countrymen. On 11 January, an
estimated 3.5 million people took to the
streets of France in support of free speech
– as if that were truly the crux of the
problem. Nearly forty world leaders and top
officials, many of whom are themselves
unrelenting violators of human rights and
free speech, walked arm in arm throughout
the streets of Paris. It was a photo-op to
show that the world was “united against
terrorism”.
In the midst of it all,
the embattled Hollande was at centre stage,
ready to act as a statesman, decisive
leader, and father of a nation. And as his
nation tried to come to terms with the
tragedy, Hollande made his annual new year’s
address, promising to escalate the exact
same policies that engendered violence and
what many
western pundits readily refer to as
“Islamic terrorism”.
The Iraq
Connection
“If we can combat
terrorism in Iraq, just as we did in Africa,
we are ensuring our own security,” he said.
His plan sounded as pathetic as it was
familiar. “If necessary we will be able to
act in Iraq with more intensity and more
efficacy; the aircraft carrier will be
working in very narrow communication with
the other forces and will be able to attack
at any point in the event of supplementary
tensions,” he said.
As if nothing has been
learnt until now, Hollande seems to be
borrowing the same costly policies that were
implemented by former US President George W
Bush after the deadly attacks of September
11. He too struck violently and
thoughtlessly and, at the urging of powerful
neoconservative groups, he carried out
pre-conceived policies to assure
America’s dominance in the name of fighting
“terror”. These policies backfired - none of
the US strategic objectives were achieved
and the “New Middle East” which the US
administration so desperately coveted became
a breeding ground for the same “terrorism”
that the Americans allegedly fought.
Prior to Bush’s
misadventures in the Middle East, al-Qaeda
seemed to have been a distant reality that
had been heard of, but unseen. A decade
after the US invasion of Iraq, al-Qaeda
penetrated the Middle East and North Africa,
hatching into numerous groups, sub-groups
and al-Qaeda-inspired groups. In fact, the
al-Qaeda-turned-Islamic State (IS) is now
redefining borders, carving a “state” of its
own that occupies massive swathes of land in
Syria and Iraq.
But why is Hollande
repeating the failed policies of the
discredited Bush administration, and
reversing the principled and sound choices
of former French presidents, like Jacques
Chirac? Foreseeing its potential disasters,
Chirac stood defiantly against Bush’s war in
Iraq, and he is still right. But since
then, France itself has changed, and failed
leaders like Nicolas Sarkozy, and now
Hollande, are responsible for that change.
The Saviour Needs
Saving
When Hollande was elected
in May 2012, some saw hope in him during
times of economic crises, high unemployment,
political disunity and a collective feeling
of loss and confusion, yet he failed to
deliver. The economy stalled despite his
promises to kickstart it. Unemployment
lingered and even the proposed higher taxes
on the country’s millionaires were not
delivered.
However, this is not just
a question of economic recession. The rise
of racism, ensured by the rise of rightwing
and fascist parties, is devouring France’s
sense of national identity. Naturally,
Hollande’s failures translated into bad
numbers. His approval rating quickly
dropped, so in order to save the day, he
decided to do the exact opposite of what he
had been elected to do:
go to war.
His decision on 11 January
2013 to bomb “Islamic militants” in Mali
scantly won him a reputation of being a
“decisive president”. But wars are easy to
start and difficult to finish. Hollande’s
wars are no exception.
The war in Mali had little
to do with religious militancy and
everything to do with the existing chasm in
the country itself and the region as a
whole, with the Libya intervention by NATO
powers playing a major part in sparking the
Mali crisis. By adding western wars and
intervention to the mix, calamity was
assured.
With the US expanding its
military presence in Africa, China its
economic reach and regional powers jockeying
for influence, it was Hollande’s perfect
movement to appear as if a great French
leader was redeeming his country’s old
colonial “glory” in Africa. Mali was the
ideal place for Hollande to distract the
world from his failures at home. The West
African country, once a promising democracy,
had become a failed state, with a host of
problems, ethnic and racial divides and a
countless stream of weapons coming in from
Libya - itself destroyed by western powers,
starting with France.
Hollande’s
moment of glory arrived on 13 September,
2013, when he declared that the war on
“Islamic extremists” had been won. But he
was as hasty as the US’s military “mission
accomplished” declaration in Bush's
“victory” speech soon after the invasion of
Iraq.
Yet Hollande’s economic
woes continued at home, and war alone could
hardly help his tarnished image. In November
2014, he received the “worst
score for a president in modern-day polling:
a 12 percent approval rating.
The more such bad news
arrived at home, the more France’s tentacles
of intervention found their way to near and
faraway places - Libya, Mali, Syria, Iraq
and so on.
War became Hollande’s only saviour.
Ecstasy of War
Frivolous wars are like
drugs. They may start with the intention of
achieving a fleeting sense of ecstasy, but
with time they become a lethal escape from
reality. Like drugs, a warlord is dependent
on war and can only be sustained and
validated by it. Hollande is a warlord in
the western sense, what Americans refer to
as “a war president”.
But as Bush’s notorious
legacy has proven, while war-induced fear
and vain patriotism may keep a leader in
office long enough, the terrible
consequences of unchecked violence shall be
felt for many years to come.
-
Ramzy
Baroud –
www.ramzybaroud.net - is an
internationally-syndicated columnist, a
media consultant, an author of several books
and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com.
He is currently completing his PhD studies
at the University of Exeter. His latest book
is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s
Untold Story (Pluto Press, London).