While members of our community continue to enjoy the french fries served up by Harvard University Dining Services, some congressional representatives have restricted their diets to “freedom fries.” Such a distinction is, of course, quite silly and will hardly affect our international ally. Moreover, the United States certainly does not contemplate war with France—as it did with Germany early in the twentieth century, when sauerkraut briefly became “liberty cabbage.” But changing the name of America’s favorite potato junk food is hardly an effective enough finger-wagging to reprimand France.

France is an important and longtime friend of the United States and no doubt it will continue in that role for decades to come. However, in the present situation brewing over Iraq, France has done a disservice to the entire free world by dragging its feet on a new U.N. resolution to force Iraqi disarmament. Yesterday, France refused to vote in favor of a new British proposal that would provide six conditions for Iraq to meet in order to avert war. In fact, France refuses to vote for any resolution that includes a resort to military action. With no ability to enforce compliance, it is no wonder U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has been dissatisfied with Iraq’s speed in disarming.

By refusing to set deadlines for Iraqi compliance of U.N. mandates or resort to any sort of military action, France and a few other nations have demonstrated to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that there is no unified international front to threaten him. The French foreign minister has stated that France’s goal is the peaceful disarmament of Iraq—but it is unrealistic to expect Saddam to disarm without the threat of military repercussions for non-compliance.

It is already clear that Hussein will put his own survival first. During the air raids of the Gulf War, he reportedly kept himself in secret underground bunkers. At the same time, as President George W. Bush often points out, Saddam has slaughtered his own people. Of course, Saddam likely limits his understanding of “his people” to himself and the Baath party military establishment that keeps him in power. With such a high regard for his own safety, Saddam might back down and truly disarm only if he sees his own life and military support threatened by an allied invasion. Such a threat might also push Saddam toward another alternative—such as seeking asylum in another Arab state. With hawks like Bush running the United States, Saddam must know that an invasion of Iraq would continue all the way to the occupation of Baghdad and the overthrow of his leadership. But with progress on a U.N. resolution lagging, Saaddam is in the clear, for now, to continue his non-compliance.

Nations like France ought to be ashamed for putting their short-term self-interest in front of long-term global interests. One might even expect such stubbornness from Western nations with shorter track records of democracy and alliance—but not from France, whose modern history has been closely intertwined with that of the United States. Unfortunately, France may be looking out for its supplies of oil from Iraq. With a global turndown still underway, France is trying to avoid the inflationary pressures and production slow-down a war—or the serious threat of war—can cause.

This logic, however, is flawed. All democratic nations, France included, must be highly wary of nations that seek weapons of mass destruction—especially when they are led by military dictators who mysteriously receive 100 percent of the “popular vote” though “democratic” elections. Long-term global economic prosperity depends on limiting the uncertainty and instability caused by rogue states that desire the power to hold the world hostage in fear and terror with such weapons. In delaying, France demonstrates a willingness to pass on the burden of dealing with these rogue nations to future generations—or to those current nations willing to act alone. Knowing that the United States, Britain and others will probably act alone, French leaders seem to be simply shrugging off their difficult responsibility.

Making threats—tourism boycotts, congressional admonitions, reduced imports—would only serve to further isolate the French government and antagonize its public. America and its world allies should continue to use diplomatic channels to bring France around, though they should not be afraid to act on their own if need be. Just the same, if France continues its unwillingness to put pressure on Iraq, a review of our snack food nomenclature may be in order. After all, France admits it: French fries are from Belgium.

Michael J.W. Hines ’04, a Crimson editor, is a social studies concentrator in Pforzheimer House.