If you find it useful or have comments, mail me.
On September 12, 2001, the world struggled to respond to the brutal and tragic events of September 11. National leaders, everyday people, pundits and commentators attempted to express themselves, to respond. The French found words that captured the moment: "Nous sommes tous Américains" We are all Americans.
In these few words, this French newspaper expressed solidarity with and compassion for their long-time allies across the Atlantic. They recognized the global implications, their own interests and vulnerability. They shared the horror and shock of the moment, and they declared themselves American.
Sure, there is a long-standing anti-American habit in France, but it has always been restricted to a rhetorical, intellectual or verbal exercise. Sure, the French feel threatened by American culture (or lack thereof), and are an arrogant, post-imperialist people, wistful for days of glory and global influence. And sure, this may be an opportunity for the French to recapture some of that influence again. But beneath these habits and debates, France has been one of America's greatest allies, and the people of France do, I believe, deeply appreciate that relationship. Siblings will fight amongst themselves, and we are sibling democracies.
This time, the French are right. They have looked at the situation, they have examined their economic, social and diplomatic interests, and they have come to the conclusion that war against Iraq is only unnecessary at this time, but dangerous. The Bush Administration just can't seem to respect that decision. America espouses democratic values - apparently, to the point of bombing democracy into Iraq - but when a democratic ally disagrees, the Bush Administration and its supporters are incensed. They have offered no rational response to the French position and arguments, rather, they have turned to childish and unseemly rhetoric about renaming French fries and boycotting French cheese.
After almost a year of positioning, repositioning, posturing, name-calling and excuses, America has not made a case for war against Iraq. The French may well wield their veto in the UN Security Council in an attempt to prevent war (then again, they may not need to veto this new resolution). President Bush has squandered global solidarity for unilateral war-making and threats.
America was a bold and noble power that helped bring into being the United Nations, and wisely realized that no single nation should have unchecked power in the world. Today, America's intent to wage war without adequate justification is a threat to world peace and to Americans and American interests throughout the world. The United Nations was chartered "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." (from the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations). We seem to have lost that vision.
Contrary to American claims, by failing to sanction war, the United Nations is more relevant than ever. No nation, no matter how powerful, no matter how well-intentioned, and no matter how righteous, should be permitted to wage war without justification. The Bush Administration has simply failed to justify this war.
While the Bush Administration falls to yet another excuse for this pending war (to bring democracy to the Middle East), it seems that the French (and Russians and Chinese) may be the better global citizens, the better democracies, and willing to risk their own interests to save us from ourselves. These nations have learned the lessons of the American founding fathers and the values we Americans have professed throughout the world. I am proud that they are all Americans.
Merci, petit frère.
2003.03.04
Thank you for contacting me about your opposition to war against Iraq. I have heard from so many Marylanders about this important issue. I appreciate you taking the time to write.
You made some excellent points -- and I share many of your concerns about unilateral American military action against Iraq. That's why I voted against S.J. Res.45, the White House measure authorizing the use of unilateral force against Iraq.
I believe that Saddam Hussein is dangerous and despicable. Yet I don't support the unilateral use of force against Iraq. Instead, I supported the Levin Amendment, which urged the United Nations Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding access for U.N. inspectors to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, this amendment failed. The President's resolution passed the Senate 77-23 on October 11, 2002.
On November 8, 2002, the United Nations Security Council gave its unanimous support for resolution 1441. This resolution demands that Iraq give up any weapons of mass destruction and authorizes sending U.N. inspectors. I believe the U.S. should help disarm Iraq through continued inspections and with the support of our allies, as stated in resolution 1441. War should be our last resort.
The risks and consequences of unilateral action against Iraq are just too great. The risks to our troops are great. The consequences for the war on terrorism are greater if we lose the essential cooperation of other nations in the effort to pursue Al Qaida and other terrorist groups. The consequences on our economy would be severe.
Again, thanks for contacting me. The decision whether to give the president unlimited authority to go to war and send American military men and women into harm's way is one of the greatest decisions our nation can make. I appreciate that you -- and so many Marylanders -- took the time to share your views and concerns. Though I may remain the minority, I want you to know that I believe my position represents the wisest, most prudent course. Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me again.
2003.03.05: Ok, so the war message made it, but the French-bashing escaped the Mikulski staff. C'est la vie.
2003.03.07: So Mikulski's office didn't turn this form letter around as fast as I thought. I can only assume that the first version of this form letter was a response to my earlier letter. Content is identical.