What a surprising article I found in France-Amérique, "the international edition of Le Figaro, published in New York"!

What a scoop! In the middle of yet another crisis, in this case the heat wave and the more than 11,000 deaths it caused, the French government is calling for help. Americans were called in.

Following the pressing invitation of the French Health Minister, three Americans, specialists of the effects of heat waves, arrived in Paris on August 28 to meet with Jean-François Mattei and several officials from the head office of the Ministry and from the Institute for sanitary watch.

At the head of the group is Michael McGeehin, chief of the health studies division at the famous Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, the federal center for Disease Control and Prevention.
"Mr. Mattei wants to elaborate a prevention plan in order to prevent such a catastrophe to happen again, consequently we talked mostly about measures set up in the United States", explained [Mr. McGeehin].

But according to some, the reason for Mr. McGeehin's trip was different:

Although the presence of Mr McGeehin and his two collaborators, flown in to Paris, is said to be linked with the preparation of a plan to make it impossible in the future for such a catastrophe to reoccur, French health officials are reportedly more interested in coming up with a professional explanation.

Okay, I admit, the second article is coming from a Pakistani news website. And I have no idea how reliable it may be. But still. I didn't hear a word about this story on French TV. And after a quick research, it appears only Le Figaro mentioned it.

Could it be because the government isn't really fond of the idea of the French people knowing they have to call Americans for help? Especially now. That could turn out to be quite... how to put it? ...embarrassing and humiliating for the country that prides itself on having the best health care system in the whole wide world and that never misses an opportunity to praise its superiority over the American health care system.

My! That could even make an old chauvinistic myth collapse. Actually, two old chauvinistic myths collapse.

Anyway, thank God, Americans answered the French government's call. As always.

Of all the sins ingratitude is the one that hurts the most. How can politicals be so blind as to not see, when you admit your failures and show the efforts to correct them, whatever short term embarassment it may cause is eclipsed by the good will and renewed faith of your constituents. If instead you hide the truth eventually it will be outed by your enemys. The embarassment will be trebled and you will be forced into a defensive mode.
Imagine a world where Jacque Chirac calls on American for help in steps to prevent another heatwave disaster. Imagine you are French. Would you think "how weak to call those warmongers. How inept a man Chirac is to go hat in hand begging favors from the likes of them."
Or would you instead think "How brave. The President must really mean business to be so committed to preventing such tragedies. I believe this will never happen again."

Yo! Why make a France-Amérique, "the international edition of Le Figaro, published in New York"! and not have it translated into English? Isso é assim típico do francês. Que ego do caralho! Eu apostei que você tem um readership de 12 povos em New York. Você realiza como os franceses overwhelmingly rudes e self centrados são. Faça exame de seu pano do lixo e fure-o acima do seu Bout.

Why make a France-Amérique, "the international edition of Le Figaro, published in New York"! and not have it translated into English?Isso é assim típico do francês
It's not typical from France.
The "International Herald tribune" US newspaper is for example published in France in English. Additionally, the Headquarters are in Paris. So...

Speaking about Mr Mattei Initiative, It 's a good idea to gather every information, ask help of anybody more competent , in order to save lifes.
We can admit that in France we are not specialists of "Heat Waves", but I remember that Chicago for example was seriously touched in a recent past.
Our health system is very good, I don't know if it is the best of the world. It's main characteristics are :
- you can choose you doctor, hospital
- You pay nothing or almost nothing, even for the most complicated surgeries.
- Doctor are "liberal", it means they have their own business, that motivate them to involve in their job and do the best for their "custmomers"
- And not but not the least, he is "socialized", in the sense that even the poorest persons in France have acces to the health system.

Yo, why have a "International Herald tribune" US newspaper published in Paris and not have it translated to French?
International websites like the BBC have the convenient "what language?" drop down list.

I just see stupidity.
Not necessarily French or American.

I don't know either why these intenational editions are not translated.

Usually the managers of newspaper are not completely stupids. So there must be a very logic reason, for example marketing, time and money.

It's easy and quick to distribute "Le Figaro" produced in Paris as daily newspaper all over Europe. Not the same to send it in USA. It is certainly quicker and cheaper for American reader to get it if produced in USA.

About the topic itself:
I am FULLY satisfied about this decision.
When some knowlegement we don't have is needed, the best thing to do is going and get it from where it is.

PARIS, Sept. 6 — France will compensate thousands of people whose parents were victims of ''Nazi barbarity'' in World War II, including those killed in massacres or for resisting the German occupation, the government said Saturday.

Between 5,000 and 8,000 people will likely be eligible, and will have the choice of either a $30,400 lump sum or monthly payments, said Pierre Mayaudon of the Defense Ministry's office for war veterans.
The compensation matches that awarded three years ago to 12,600 Jewish orphans whose parents were deported to Nazi extermination camps during the 1940-1944 occupation — a dark chapter in French history because wartime France's Vichy regime collaborated with the Nazis.

The following is from a letter sent to Pave correspondents:

There are several disturbing things about this "compensation".

The first is that it comes so late that the vast majority of beneficiaries are dead, conveniently limiting the government's tab. Aside from the convenience of mortality, it's difficult to understand what took France over 50 years to ascertain the "interests of justice and fairness" for its citizens.

Second, l'addition seems embarrassingly modest given the nature of the beneficiaries' losses. Thirty thousand four hundred dollars seems a pretty paltry settlement for the state's acknowledged complicity in murders by its own agents and supporting the killing of its citizens by foreign agents.

Third, the tone of moral munificence struck by this particular government is wholly misplaced. The Chirac government continues to turn a blind eye to native anti-Semitism, has postured and summitted and done everything short of spending money to properly equip an army to defend the citizens of France, and lastly, it supports these very crimes it is compensating its own citizenry for "in the interests of justice and fairness" by client despots like Messrs. Mugabe, Saddam (lately deposed), Arafat, et al.

I am not here denying France the practice of Realpolitik, but had the Fourth Republic gotten around to this, claims of acting in "the interests of justice and fairness" might have had something approaching an authentic ring.

Implicit in the Fifth Republic paying down the past, is the idea that the good France showed up around 1789 and kicked around until 1940 when the bad France took over the government at Vichy. The bad France is reviled as illegitimate, aberrant, and wholly un-French. Then around 1945 the good France found itself again and has been with us ever since improving the world's moral order. Robert Paxton's carefully researched and argued Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order, 1940-44 sets the record straight on this French fairy tale.

Justice in this world needs to be swift and sure. Justice can come too late, and never more so than when it takes the form of a token with its remedies hollowed out. Justice so delayed and so deformed moves to the province of a more exacting -- and wholly un-French -- judge in the world to come.

BTW, M. Mayeau, categorical compensation to noncombatants or their survivors is a legal construct dating back only to WWII. Each authorizing law stipulates its own conditions for compensation. As far as I know there is no treaty law, shared law, or generally settled principles for such compensation.

DGB

Implicit in the Fifth Republic paying down the past, is the idea that the good France showed up around 1789 and kicked around until 1940 when the bad France took over the government at Vichy. The bad France is reviled as illegitimate, aberrant, and wholly un-French.

It's much more complicated than that. French politics have been successively governed by many political parties and governing systems over 200 hundreds years (kings, empires, and 5 republic) with 3 revolutions (1789,1830 and 1848) and four wars. Opponent groups went successively at the helm of the country. Vichy was not more un-french than LouisXIII . Countries in Europe around us were falling into fascism one after the other (Germany, Italy, Spain), these ideas had huge supporters all around Europe, and we were not that far of a civil war before the WWII started. At this time (circa 1936), our socialist jewish prime minister (Leon Blum) was attacked every day by anti-semitist slogan by groups like "Action Française". These people were just waiting the good moment to take the power.

Was the majority of French people agreeing with these politics? Maybe, but they were probably not in a state to be able to think about it and oppose it. Priorities were to find something to eat and to follow in fear developments of the war. Some were happy that war finished so early because they had lost sons and brothers during the first one (2 of my grand grand fathers died ar 17 and 20 there so I can understand it).

Many were ready to accept that jews were the cause of their problem, or at least very few were ready to sacrify one self for them.

M. Papafrench, AKA Patrice Klajman,

The attendant facts are neatly covered in Mr. Paxton's book that I've reference above. Unless required, I don't provide exhaustive historical background, but thank you for the synopsis of French pre-War social fragility and political instability.

France was indeed a political mess. After its defeat, collaboration became a stated government policy. At several points, government officials openly described France at war with the Allies (e.g., after Mers-el-Kebir July 1940: at Dakar September 1940, in French Equatorial Africa in September-November 1940, and in Syria May-July 1941).

As you are aware, my arguments in these threads are largely with contemporary French governments and their appetites for international mischief, their duplicities, their hubris, and their sanctimonious posturing and insincerity.

Do you have a comment on your country's 50+-year delay to act "in the interests of justice and fairness" to remedy the state's acknowledged complicity in the murders of its citizens by its own agents and the facilitation of the murders of its citizens by foreign agents?

Regards,
DGB

At several points, government officials openly described France at war with the Allies (e.g., after Mers-el-Kebir July 1940: at Dakar September 1940
I'm not really an expert from these events but from what I know, Mers-el-Kebir was a schizophrenic event for French naval army who didn't know what to do (join the allies or refer to the new government - Petain was a WWI war heroe - and what to expect from the English army. They didn't want to surrender and were attacked by the English (who didn't want the nazis to have the control of this army), which put them de facto as adversories.

Do you have a comment on your country's 50+-year delay to act "in the interests of justice and fairness" to remedy the state's acknowledged complicity in the murders of its citizens by its own agents and the facilitation of the murders of its citizens by foreign agents?

It was done a long time after, but people who came back at the helm of France after, were people who had fought with the allies and they didn't consider Vichy as the real French state. So they probably didn't consider that "France" was responsible for it. The denial was even harder for them to avoid.

Papa French's explaination of the lack of redress of greivances to those who were wronged by the French government during World War two sounds true to me.
THe recent recanting of French policies by Chirac's Government look more like a political stunt. Paying victims a pitance for their suffering during that time? Didn't everybody suffer during that time? A universe of war can't be marginalized by money 50 years after paid to a few. It can only be remembered by those who endured and made it out the otherside.
In France they make this gesture to beguile the memory and distract from the current policy in regard to Mugabe, Saddam, and Arafat.
This current policy is were they fail to pay what is owed for French complicity in the universal war.

THe recent recanting of French policies by Chirac's Government look more like a political stunt.

Hmm, I don't really agree with that. The first gesture was made 5 years ago. There wasn't money involved, but the French state recognized its responsability in front of the jewish community. This full process started then so the current political events have nothing to do with it.

Papafrench:
Five years ago was after France had sold a nuclear reactor to Iraq. France had started a push in the UN to have sanctions lifted from Saddams regime that very year. Saddam ejected UN weapons inspectors shortly after.
You don't see a public admission of regret for Frances culpability in the treatment of jews during WW2 (at no cost to France) as a political stunt?
---There wasn't money involved, but the French state recognized its responsability in front of the jewish community.

Five years ago was after France had sold a nuclear reactor to Iraq. France had started a push in the UN to have sanctions lifted from Saddams regime that very year. Saddam ejected UN weapons inspectors shortly after.
You don't see a public admission of regret for Frances culpability in the treatment of jews during WW2 (at no cost to France) as a political stunt?

No. First, I don't see as how it could be a stunt as it was mainly a domestic issue. And I was unaware we were trying to sell a nuclear reactor to iraq 5 years ago. Give me your source.

It was done earlier then 5 years ago. So what! French domestic policy and its foreign policy toward jews are so disjointed and in opposition to each other that you can only see the gesture as slight of hand.

This recent fad for public apologies and compensations to select constituencies smacks of political opportunism, scil., what M. Mayeau has aptly called a political stunt.

Bill Clinton's weepy 1998 apology for slavery was unsatisfying not merely because it was slipshod, elliptical, and its history politely expurgated, but because he used it as a convenient smokescreen to obscure his troubled presidency. It was meant not only as a crowd-pleaser for long-neglected black voters, but to shore up his larger liberal constituency, shaken by the depravities of his administration.

Mr. Clinton's faint-hearted whistlestop apology in Rwanda was even more embarrassing as he was directly and grievously culpable.

There is a political trend to transform individual responbility and culpabilty to the larger faceless corporate entity of the state. What escapes the nice liberals who embrace this trend is that this is the formulaic basis of bigotry.

All Germans down through time must assume the blood guilt of the final solution, implicitly acknowledging they are murderous anti-Semites. All French down through time must assume the blood guilt of Vichy France, implicitly acknowledging they are iniquitous collaborators and cowardly murderers. All Americans down through time must assume the blood guilt of slavery, implicitly acknowledging they are racists.

The Germans and French can speak for themselves, but Americans have paid a blood price for slavery. In the American Civil War 359,528 Americans gave their lives as a guaranty of slavery's abolition.

Mr. Clinton lacks the intellectual depth, the passion, the eloquence, and, most importantly, the moral authority of Abraham Lincoln, who is America's last word on slavery. That Mr. Clinton presumed to add something more was a political stunt.

Political stunts in the name of justice 50 years, 100 years, after the facts cannot be spun into real justice. I do not sit here waiting for justice to be done me for England's crimes against my Hibernian forebears: the Plantation, Penal Laws, Corn Laws, Black 47, et al. And just what justice would that be?

Justice is circumscribed by fairness, but fairness is circumscribed by the possible. Justice in its fullness is reserved for the world to come. A real disappointment for the God-less.

DGB

DGB

First I thank you for having my back.

I'm not really familiar with Mr. Clinton's apology to either the former slaves or Rwandans.
You could be right about the Rwanda apology. Your almost certainly right about the apology to slavery (mostly because there are no slaves alive from 150+ years) but, Mr Clinton gave an apology to the Japanese American WW2 internees that was thoughtful and appreciated by the recipients.

Over fifty years ago, the United States Government unjustly interned, evacuated, or relocated you and many other Japanese Americans. Today, on behalf of your fellow Americans, I offer a sincere apology to you for the actions that unfairly denied Japanese Americans and their families fundamental liberties during World War II.
In passing the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, we acknowledge the wrongs of the past and offered redress to those who endured such grave injustice. In retrospect, we understand that the nation's actions were rooted deeply in racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a lack of political leadership. We must learn from the past and dedicate ourselves as a nation to renewing the spirit of equality and our love of freedom. Together, we can guarantee a future with liberty and justice for all. You and your family have my best wishes for the future.

Bill Clinton

J.Mayeau,

It was done earlier then 5 years ago. So what!
Well, it just proves that the 2 events have no relationships with each other. It's a very far fetched accusation to say the least.
This story of nuclear reactor was below radar at the time it happened, even in France, so 10 years later...

In addition, 5 years ago, there were no particular tension with Israel or the French jewish community. And no particular problem of popularity for our president and prime minister.

DGB,

There is a political trend to transform individual responbility and culpabilty to the larger faceless corporate entity of the state. What escapes the nice liberals who embrace this trend is that this is the formulaic basis of bigotry.
But in our case, it was considered until 5 years ago that Vichy was responsible for it, absolving France and its citizen from their responsabilities. It was worse, by far.

Papa This story of nuclear reactor was below radar at the time it happened, even in France
If it was such a low key affair in France then why was it front page news in America?
(thats a rhetorical question, mull it over in your own noggin)
Five years ago Saddam was paying people to blow up jews. I'm sure the French media bombarded you with heart wrenching stories of Iraqi children deformed and dead by the thousands from exposure to depleated uranium. But I don't think the jewish population was so easily misled.

If it was such a low key affair in France then why was it front page news in America?
I'm pretty sure you were ignoring everything of this one year ago, before the start of the reflexive French-bashing. It was in the front page of page news but still you don't remember if it was 5 years ago or more than 20 years ago (it was 22 years ago). At the time, sadddam hussein was not considered as a murderous dictator by the international community.

Five years ago Saddam was paying people to blow up jews.
And so are still doing most of current arab dictatorships. Like Saud arabia, I have not doubt about that.

I'm sure the French media bombarded you with heart wrenching stories of Iraqi children deformed and dead by the thousands from exposure to depleated uranium.

So, for you, these children didn't exist and none of them suffered later from the embargo.

But I don't think the jewish population was so easily misled.

All Jews are not like those posting on lgf you know...

Papafrench Iraq needs you to help find the missing dead babies, no one else has been able to locate them. With your special insight it should be a short work to find 500,000 bodies. You could bring the editor from le monde to keep you company. If he doesn't want to come, a couple back issues of the paper would be enough of a guide.

22 years ago Saddam was still Saddam to all but his number one supporters. Pointless to argue with you on this. Your people (most of them) still see Saddam as a kind and gental Dictator now let alone 22 years ago.

Papafrench Iraq needs you to help find the missing dead babies

Tell me why you didn't go there to fight this war?

22 years ago Saddam was still Saddam

It wasn't a problem for Rumsfeld at the time. Is he a French in disguise?

Tell me why you didn't go there to fight this war?
I was a Marine. Although I haven't raised a rifle in quite a while, in my time I could dot an eye with an M-16 from 500 yds. I was honorably discharged in 1989. If our situation were to deteriorate I would be again.
It wasn't a problem for Rumsfeld at the time. Is he a French in disguise? Rumsfeld was fighting the wrong people in retrospect. Since 1981 our people have admitted that error. Our support of Saddam was shortlived. The Iranian Gov. is still a threat. The Kurds are the most prosperous people in Iraq today because of our support. No need to hang my head for the people our guys finally backed after the shake out. France backed Saddam to the bitter end. Hard to see how you can be proud of that. If fact I wonder if France is a place Saddam might be on his way to right now? Is Hussein living in Chirac's guest house?

So, for you, these children didn't exist and none of them suffered later from the embargo.

As matter of fact they didn't exist. That number came from the UN who got it from Saddam himself. He came up with that number by guessing what the population of Iraq should have been at the time, and finding that it was short by 500,000 people came to the conclusion that the embargo was at fault. IOW these 500,000 babies were never born. They were a figment of the imagination of SH. The UN, at least was honest enough to question the accuracy of the claim in its report. The media published the story as if it was a fact. A figure like half a million dead babies should set the bullshit alarm ringing in anyone's mind but the gullibility of people never ceases to amaze me.

As for the depleted uranium story ask yourself, if over 90% of the DU ammo was used in Kuwait why is it that there was no increase in cancer rates in Kuwait after GW1 but, depending on your source, there was an increase in Iraq of several hundred or thousand percent?

My apologies, I conflated responses to two threads and posted this one to the wrong thread.

Papafrench, AKA Patrice Klajman,

And I was unaware we were trying to sell a nuclear reactor to iraq 5 years ago. Give me your source.
Posted by papa french at September 10, 2003 05:11 PM

M. Mayeau has made a claim. Asking for his sources is a fair request.

Khidhir Hamza, a former director of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, describes the basis for France’s doggéd support of Saddam Hussein right up to – and apparently following – his overthrow. The article can be found here.

You seem to have entered into a spitting contest with M. Mayeau. The comments don’t seem to be going anywhere. Exactly what is the point you are trying to establish? Also, while you are very keen for M. Mayeau to source his claims, I notice you provide none for your own. Why is that?

M. Mayeau,

My complaints with Mr. Clinton’s throwaway apology for slavery are many: It was a sop calculated for political advantage; Mr. Clinton suggested an ongoing American animus to Africa, his administration excluded; the speech itself was trite and condescending, neatly overlooking the complicity of Africa in the enslavement of her sons and daughters – nor did Mr. Clinton’s moral disgust extend to the contemporary practice of slavery in the Sudan.

Mr. Clinton is hardly the person to improve Mr. Lincoln’s eloquence on the evils of American slavery.

Mr. Clinton’s whistle-stop speech in Rwanda was just that. During his 1998 11-day African tour he managed to spare Rwanda exactly one half hour of his time to shed his ephemeral tears on the tarmac at Kigali Airport. Pointing out the obvious Mr. Clinton admitted: “We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We should not have allowed the refugee camps to become safe haves for the killers. We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide. We cannot change the past.” This insipid speech in its entirety can be found here. His administration could have stopped the slaughter had it declared its intention to do so instead of dithering to calculate the political advantages or temporizing about the term “genocide”. The Atlantic Monthly published a chilling indictment by Samantha Power, Bystanders to Genocide, of the Clinton administration’s inaction on Rwanda.

Suddenly politicians are wild for apologies. They’ll apologize for anything they are not directly responsible for to any sizable voting constituency. And apologies are the camel’s nose for reparations.

Excuse my cynicism about the French “compensation” discussed in this thread. After 15,000 heat deaths, the current French government has no credibility with voters 65 years and older. Oddly enough, the beneficiaries of the announced “compensation” belong to this very constituency.

Regards.
DGB