Chirac is a good example of the dangers of immobility – there is no such thing as stability in this world : things are either getting slowly better or slowly worse. And inaction of Chirac’s kind has lead France to be on a very definite slope downwards. Vicious violence endemic in no-go zones all over France, hundreds of thousands out of work for years, and a general malaise and feeling that your kids are going to live in a France that is worse, socially and economically than you have enjoyed. 2 million French living and working overseas – who have left this beautiful country , fed up with the red tape, the feudalism, the lack of optimism and vigour prevalent in France. And the lack of political will to effect any real changes.
Read Patrick Baudry on-line for examples of French disfunctionality and “schizophrenia” , and ideas of how this could be changed with a little self-analysis and courage:
he has an English version of the book you can download for free. Unfortunately the press reviews on his website are all in French…
For the results of Chirac’s do nothing and posture attitude:
Check out 3 weeks of vicious rioting in winter 2006 in the no-go zones around French cities as the result of years of lying about the real problems in these zones, and also the real disfunctionality in almost all aspects of French life, which makes social mobility almost non-existent in these zones, and even in all of France.
If you feel any sympathy for the rioters here’s a taste of what they are: They poured petrol on a handicapped woman in a bus and set fire to her (she was rescued by the driver)… drug gangs, tribal hate of white French , fuelled by radical Islam.
I remember during the Yugoslav civil war in the 90s - civilians being slaughtered horribly in ethnic cleansing , village by village. In France, we were just a few hundred kms away from the carnage ... and I had spent a month in Yugoslavia in 89', making the war very real to me.
What did France do ? nothing... send a few soldiers with the UN to monitor the slaughter with no real mandate to intervene militarily. Chirac was banging his fist on the table and saying "Milosevic must stop the killing!". without the threat of force - bombing targets in Belgrade or something similarly dramatic, such statements have no effect whatsoever.
Things finally changed when Blair and Clinton engaged in bombing bridges , TV stations and other infrastructure. (hidden Tanks proving hard to hit). And of course - the French Govmt complained and tried to water down the target list... leading the Democrats at the time to say they would never work with such obstructionists again.
so what's new ? old and in the way.... you would have thought the Nazi occupation of France would have brought home the lesson that "peace kills" - pacifism leads to slavery and death - of other countries you refuse to assist, then of your own country, as dictators sensing weakness, blackmail, or invade. And as internal forces (eg radical Islam in France currently) test your will with squirmishes.
I do hope this changes with the new president Sarkozy. So Milosevic finally did loose thanks to anglo-US action ... this came rather late - after 200 000 civilians had been slaughtered by mostly Serb forces. I’m sure their families have a high opinion of Chirac’s “softly-softly” approach.
Yes, civilians die in bombings and wars of liberation – The Normandy landings are a good example . But that’s the complexity of life – there are no perfect solutions in such cases – choose between 5 000 dead civilians in a war of liberation or 200 000 in ethnic cleansing if you do nothing …. Inaction is a choice that has consequences.