Talk:Foreign relations of France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	France Portal Foreign relations of France is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Am I the only one that thinks that the section on the Middle East is overly long compared to the other sections, and exhbibits considerable bias? David.Monniaux

So that we can try to fixup the section that talks about the Middle East, could you point out the statements where bias is showing so we can try to sort this out? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe there are quite a few statements not backed by facts (they may be true, but no backing is provided).

for instance:

• the article claims that though France had set an embargo on both sides of the conflicts in the middle-east, it sold arms to Arab countries, notably 100 Mirage fighters to Libya. Any backup?
• the article claims that "French relations with the secular regimes of the Middle East has even encouraged terrorism, as supporters of these governments have often been targeted by religious extremists". Any facts to back that statement? While it is true that France has been targeted by extremists, what facts allow us to infer that France's relations in the middle-east was an incentive?
• The last section claims that "France is a transshipment point for and consumer of South American cocaine and Southwest Asian heroin". Any backup?

Furthermore, I think some parts should be rephrased. For instance the paragraph about the end of the algerian conflict is written in quite a "conspiracy style": "France could not portray itself as a leader of the oppressed nations of the world if it still was enforcing its colonial rule upon other nations", "With the conflict raging it would have been next to impossible for France to have had positive relations with the nations of the Middle East". The article gives the idea that the end of the Algerian war was nothing but part of a plot to gain control on the Middle-East.

Overall, I think the impression of bias is largely due to hyperbolic terms such as "next to impossible", "raging", and farther in the section "immense" (about the role of Carter in the peace process), etc. I think rephrasing as "the Algerian war was damaging France's relations in the M-E", or replacing "immense" by "important", would give an overall impression of better NPOV.

Any comments before I commit a few changes in that spirit? Also it would be good to check the facts and include pointers to back up what is stated.

Sam 03:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think we should remove most historical information and focus one the present realtion, with short information about the shift that accord with de Gaulle. Any thoughts? Carl Logan 20:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is overly long and I think many Haitians would be offended by the statement that France tried to reinstall democracy in Haiti. The Haitians I know claim that French and US forces hijacked Aristide and hand the power to members of the former dictatorial regime. Get-back-world-respect 01:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

The Haitian statement says "It supports the ongoing efforts to restore democracy to Haiti and seeks to expand its trade relations with all of Latin America." This appears to be the official stance of France. In what way could we alter this statement to remove the bias? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To David Monniaux: No you're not the only one to think this section is unusualy long. Perhaps it should have its own article. Matthieu 00:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation, unsubstantiated and vague statements?

De Gaulle launched the immense shift in policy from one favouring Israel to one favouring the Arab states for a combination of reasons. It was becoming obvious that the strengthening alliance between the United States and Israel would soon make France's role as an ally mostly irrelevant. The US could always provide Israel with more money and with higher levels of military technology. For France to play an important role in the region it seemed supporting the Arab side would give it more leverage in the future. Trade considerations also came into play.

Isn't that speculation as to De Gaulle's motives and intentions? Is there documentation for this?

Nasser and de Gaulle, who shared many similarities, – as in? Same politics (Nasser was a Socialist, de Gaulle was certainly not one)?

The United States, the United Kingdom and West Germany all sold far more to the Middle East each year than France, and none of these states pursued as strong a pro-Arab policy as did the French. Quite the opposite was true of the United States and Britain which firmly backed Israel and were opposed to many of the governments in the region, especially Nasser's Egypt. The Arab states would almost always prefer the cheaper goods from an anti-Arab nation than more expensive ones from a pro-Arab state such as France. France was not as successful economically as Britain, Germany, or the United States and no amount of positive relations with the Arab world could overcome the greater costs of French goods. Any evidence that French goods were substantially more expensive than British goods?

The last part of the article sounds like an editorial piece written from the point of view that the French government is stupid to have pursued a policy that did not gain it anything, except terrorism and US and Israeli hostility. This may be true; yet, Wikipedia is not the place to write essays as to what kind of foreign policy such and such country should have followed 30 years ago. We should give the facts, with correct perspective. David.Monniaux 13:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure that's nice but really who cares?

[edit] Corruption

Please refrain from POV such as "France was found guilty of corruption". A country cannot be corrupt, people can. The scandal referred to included many politicians and firms from many countries, also from North America. Añoranza 15:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where you are reffering to, the portion you removed does not say France was guilty of corruption. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It was written "France was involved..." That is nonsense, there were individuals and firms from many many countried involved in that scandal. Not countries. Añoranza 03:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)