French wave their true colors.

​This article by Mohammad T. ALRasheed, who writes weekly on Tuesdays for the Arab News newspaper appeared in the 22nd November 2011 edition of the paper (hardcopy and electronic).

The French Ambassador replied on 26 November with the following comment (see below) and signed it with his name and official title. It took him that long to respond to a weekly op-ed. That in itself tells you something of the man and the embassy he runs.

The author responded with his own comments (see below) but the paper did not publish on its website. After much haggling they did. Exactly one hour later, the reply was withdrawn.

The talk about democracy and the freedom of the press is never ending, but the practice is skin deep. We are told that the French Embassy exerted pressure on the Foreign Ministry and they demanded the reply be withdrawn. 

We publish here and allow anyone interested to post or print if they want to. 
The author challenges the venerable Ambassador to a public debate (in person, on TV, in print, online --the choice is his) to explain himself and his 'official' country's policy on personal freedoms, including that of the press. If he wants to discuss French Literature, philosophy, art, history, the author is more than ready. As for Arab heritage, the author thinks the man is beyond redemption in his blissful ignorance. But to throw out accusations like that is not acceptable and is quite libelous. And since he wrote his name and official title, we see this as 'official' French policy since he is entrusted with it and a spokesman for it at least in the country he is serving. 
 
We also challenge the French press altogether to show 'their' true colors; are they the same as the Ambassador's or are they the children of Rousseau who taught the world what an autobiography should be?

By BERTRAND BESANCENOT, AMBASSADOR OF FRANCE TO SAUDI ARABIA

It was with great amazement that I read, on the Opinion pages of your newspaper, an article by Mohamed Al Rashid entitled, “Europe threatening the world again” (Nov. 22).

 The author loathes Europe — which is evident from his acerbic comments — and this is something he is perfectly entitled to do, even if I can only deplore that fact. However, what I find unacceptable is that he pours out an avalanche of spurious claims, omitting the truth either deliberately or through ignorance, and thus completely misleading the readers.

First of all, I think that nobody considers Europe a "threat" today. The author should be careful in using such excessive language.

Secondly, is he really being objective in accusing Europe of being responsible for all evils? Is the economic and financial crisis coming from Europe? The highest public debts in the world: Aren't they American and Japanese? The stalemate regarding the peace process in Palestine and the entire regional imbalance resulting from the war on Iraq: Were they Europe's doing? Were the Europeans alone in embracing Qaddafi? Is Europe responsible for the situation in Yemen? And so on.

All this lacks seriousness and does not reflect any intellectual honesty on the part of the author!

Moreover, what really strikes me is the "old thinking" in this article. Evidently, the author does not realize that the unipolar world is dead — definitely dead. The international order has become multipolar. All the world's problems and uncertainties have to be assessed and tackled collectively. France and Great Britain are not marginal or old-fashioned powers. Their role in the G20 in containing the financial crisis is unquestionable. Without them, Qaddafi would still be in power and bloodshed would not have been avoided in Benghazi. It is biased ignorance to claim that all that was for "oil, money and business"! As for the problems of the euro, without the determined intervention of President Nicolas Sarkozy and Chancellor Angela Merkel, they would have been much more serious, wouldn't they?

The reality is that our multipolar world needs influential state actors that contribute to the world stability and to solving difficulties. France and Europe have a prominent, irreplaceable role to play in this regard.

Finally, let us keep things in perspective. The way European nations — at war with each other for centuries — cooperate today peacefully should be considered as a model for the rest of the world, certainly not a threat.

Dr. Mohammad T. Al-Rasheed's (author) response:

I thank the Ambassador for taking the time to write back. Let us take his ventriloquist performance point by point.

Loathe Europe? Surely the French Language can do better and I understand how his English failed him. Nevertheless, just for the record, I do not ‘loathe’ Europe. I simply have read and studied its history. Such emotive language is a hallmark of our Arab (Eastern to him) world, but is rather rare in European discourse. I dare say that he has been here too long and needs to be posted to a Nordic country to cool down.

Mr. Ambassador, don't call my comments spurious, tell me what is not a fact and then we can talk. I lived in France for quite a while and saw how a minister committed suicide in a wood outside Paris (Finance no less) and how an ex-President is visiting the courts daily. I wonder why?

How on earth did I omit truths? And if so, what are they? Excessive language? Read your own undiplomatic diction and you will see something different. By making it clear that Europe is threatening the world financially this time is something that David Cameron, President Obama, and others have said. Would he call them what he called me? Now that is the hallmark of hypocrisy.

His President is today accused of dirty play apropos the ex-IMF chief. What folly? The mess that is West Africa is the doing of France alone. That is a fact. Read your history Mr. Ambassador, otherwise, just shut up.

Europe's role in this area did not start or end with the Sykes-Picot agreement. But this fact is worth mentioning to remind him of his country's stellar performance over the ages. Now he tells us that the French President and the German Chancellor are the ones who intervened to make the Euro crisis less harmful. Sure, and pigs fly. That is like saying I will save you from death now and allow you to go on having terminal cancer. Thank you, but I'd rather not.

I am surprised that a great country like France has nothing better than this man with the IQ of a chicken with a headache to post to our country. That in itself, is proof enough to show you what and how they think of us. And if Libya was not about oil and money, why did his country and the rest of them did nothing when millions were being killed in Rwanda?

Multipolar? Pray tell us, what single problem has Europe solved and hence kept the peace? Serbia? It was America that bombed and they followed like a pack of dogs. Palestine? They agree to Blair being their representative when everyone knows the man stinks in his own country today. Burma? The woman is still under house arrest. Yemen? 'Enough said. What more? Oh, Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank you Europe for moderating Bush's aggression.

It wasn't me who called Europe 'marginal or old fashioned.' It was Rumsfeld who even called it 'old Europe' implying senility and impotence. Where was the heir to Flaubert then with his erudition? And Rumsfeld told a fact. Let me remind him that the last battle won by France alone was one before Waterloo. After that, they needed either America, UK, or even conscripted colonials whom they despise now and refuse to give them the French nationality to save them from whatever threatened them.

Being an Ambassador, Mr. Ambassador, does not make you right by default. You are wrong and you are vulgar and have no notion of intellectual discourse. I demand an apology on these same pages.

You have accused me of hate when I can hardly be bothered with such base emotions. You have said that nobody considers Europe a threat and disregarded the comments to the same article from all over proving otherwise. To say that Europe was not the only 'one' to embrace Qaddafi is like saying that I was not the only person in town to steal. Both and all are labelled thieves.

Intellectual honesty? Do you know what honesty is to begin with? A much more intelligent European who visited and worked in this region 150 years ago said that Ambassadors are nothing more than sanctioned liars lying on behalf of their countries. Sure, we knew that. But we expect them to have more training in this field. Obviously, this Ambassador is an appointment and a product of the Sarkozy Presidency (he was my mayor when I lived in Neuilly-sur-Seine and I know of him more than I would like to know). Ah for the days of Mr. Mitterrand!

All in all, I am glad to have provoked such a lofty personage to such a silly response. My point is proven since my words must have struck some cords and exposed some ugly truths not to the liking of his particular Ambassador.

To the French themselves I say, Vive La France, no matter who happens to talk on their behalf on any given day.