Jean Monnet

One of the intellectual digressions that occupied me after reading Jackson's book on De Gaulle was the character of Jean Monnet.  I haven't fully delved into his life but he is a character that deserves much study by the dissident right, if only to understand what forces are currently working against it.  Monnet needs to be thought of a sort of anti de-Gaulle and what's extraordinary about his life is how much influence he was able to wield in world events despite never being elected to office. 

His own biography is quite amazing, rapidly moving from a cognac salesman to a mover and shaker in the upper echelons of the French government. Prior to World War two, he was sent to buy airplanes for the French, only to join the British with the Fall of France, working as their representative the Roosevelt administration. Their working with the upper echelon's of the New Deal bureaucracy he was able to exert an outsized influence on American military production--Keynes thought he had shortened the war by a year--and post war economic planning for Europe.

Interesting fact: the term "Arsenal of democracy" was coined by Monet and appropriated by Roosevelt.

Monnet also hated de Gaulle, seeing him as a the antithesis of all he stood for.  I have no doubt that he used his position of influence in the US Government to undermine de Gaulle.

Monnet's big idea was that nationalism was the fundamental cause of Europe's troubles and his task was to eliminate it.  The broad outline of his strategy was as follows:

There are three characteristics, which are worth special attention: Sectoral integration, elitism, and supra-nationality in institutions. The idea of sectoral integration originated from the focus of the French modernization plan on the coal and steel sectors as well as from Monnet’s dirigist believes that these were the core economic areas. Elitism and the idea of engaging core groups resulted from Monnet’s desire to reach the maximum independence from national governments and to create direct pressure for integration within each member state.[ED] The desire for supra-nationality is probably the most distinctive feature of the Monnet plan and merits a deeper analysis. Monnet’s understanding of supra-nationality, resulting out of his previous leadership experience, was based on a strong institutionalism backed up by a technocratic elite. Moreover, it was important for Monnet, since these two features were the basis for creating a supra-national power house with the capacity to challenge national governments in creating an irreversible integration process.

The plan was put into practice with the Schumann declaration on the 9th of May 1950, which more or less outlined the mayor ideas of Monnet. Although some scholars argue that Monnet overstated his importance and influence on the event, it nevertheless marked the point at which the implementation of his ideas started. The ambitions of the main actors Monnet and Schumann were clear in stating that the purpose of the outlined ideas was to “lay the first concrete foundation for a European federation which is so indispensable to the preservation of peace”. Along the lines of Monnet’s ideas, the initial stage of integration was to be achieved through the integration of the steel and coal sectors: “the supply of coal and steel on equal terms […]; and the equalization as well as the improvements in the living standards”.

Monnet realised was that commercial integration was the way to destroy national boundaries.  Note also, that he did not work through the usual "democratic" channels to achieve his aims, rather, his method of attack was to organise senior business people and senior public servants to formulate public policy which they would present to idiot politicians who would then try to implement them.  He was a deep state organiser.  Founder of the Action Committee For the United States of Europe, it worked tirelessly for the goal of a "unified" Europe governed by supranational organisations, which controlled by his cronies, would undermine national sovereignty.  The United States strongly supported him in this endeavor.

Welcome to the world of modern global capitalism.

The other thing about Monet was that he was a man with a long term vision. If he lost one battle he would regroup and attack from a different direction. He played the long game. He also didn't seek the limelight, preferring to work with influential people in the background, letting others take the praise. it was a way of avoiding scrutiny and public debate.

De Gaulle called Monnet an "apatride" meaning a stateless person.  De Gaulle saw the game he was playing at and attempted to neutralise him and his organisation. But de Gaulle was ultimately undermined by a democracy and culture that would sell it's identity for peace and prosperity. The great lesson of de Gaulle's life is that unless the culture supports the politics, the politics will wither over the long run.  Politicians may be able to mobilise their countries towards greatness, but if the people want to be mediocre that's where they'll eventually end up.

In the early days Monnet got a lot of pushback by governments for what he was trying to do. But his first big break with the realisation of his European plan came with the assistance of a pious Christian politician. Ascetic, devout, and a student of Thomas Aquinas:

Robert Schumann.

De Gaulle and the Idenity of Europe

One of the reasons why I'm currently writing about Charles de Gaulle is because I feel that he has been unfairly maligned in the Anglosphere. Seen as an "Anglophobe" it's quite easy to dismiss the man as just another arrogant and notable Frenchman who happened to achieve his mark in history and leave it there. But what's apparent when you study his life and influences in a bit more depth, is that what the man was trying to do was realise a certain vision, primarily with respect to France and--Europe--that philosophically opposed to many of the currents of modernity. Quite simply, de Gaulle was deep.... really deep.  I really didn't realise how deep he was, and what he was putting forward, until I started drilling down into some of his philosophical influences and ideas.  I think the dissident Right needs to give him another look. Particularly the Christian Right.

In another post, I want to talk about the philosophical underpinnings of De Gaulle's weltanschauung but what I would to put forward to my readers is the notion of de Gaulle as a "Christian anti-Buddhist".  De Gaulle strongly believed in the notion of identity and the sense of needing to protect it. What he saw with the modernisation of the world was the homogenisation of society with the concurrent loss of identity that accompanied it. Paradoxically, with the growing "official" multiculturalism he recognised that the world was becoming less diverse.

The economic forces of modernity were particularly potent in this regard. While he was oppositional to the British in many instances, he realised that they were less of a threat than the Americans who were far more "modern". Note, it's very important to separate the notion of the U.S. and modernity. The U.S. is not "intrinsically" modern but incidentally so. In his arguments with the British he recognised that Britain was acting for her own interests in a fairly straightforward way and while this may have been a threat for the French in terms of territorial integrity it did not attack the notion of French identity. The US on the other hand was pushing for a modernity--particularly in the post war period-- which would destroy the French identity and its own.

De Gaulle was not a Luddite or a traditionalist, who felt that "turning the clock back" would restore the world to some kind of imagined idyllic existence. He realised that modernity had its benefits but it had to be "tamed" in order to preserve identity. For de Gaulle, the primary means of achieving this came about by encouraging a protected "French" industry and culture even when it did not make "economic sense". De Gaulle accepted the trade-off.

De Gaulle was also awed by the economic power of the U.S. which came with all the associated political ramifications. He recognised  that France could not compete with it by going alone and would be subsumed by it.  Rather it would have to combine with other European nations, in common purpose, to promote a alternative version of modern society.  Only by combining could they form an economic power which could resist the "americanisation" of the their countries.  This is why he ceaselessly pushed for a notion of a Europe des Patries, as it was an economic model which balanced economic necessity with the preservation of national identity, hence his Fouchet Plan.

Or as de Gaulle said himself:

I do not believe that Europe can have any living reality if it does not include France and her Frenchmen, Germany and its Germans, Italy and its Italians, and so forth. Dante, Goethe, Chateaubriand belong to all Europe to the very extent that they were respectively and eminently Italian, German, and French. They would not have served Europe very well if they had been stateless, or if they had thought and written in some type of integrated Esperanto or Volapük.

What's really interesting here is that De Gaulle reached this position through a sense of Christian nationalism. Something that is unheard of today, except in places like Poland or in Orban's sense of Hungary. This Christian nationalism was anti-keanotic in the sense that the nation had a right to live, defend itself, and define how it wishes to exist but it also respected the rights of other nations to do the same. This type of nation did not wish to emulate the suffering Christ but His triumphant transformation. Once again, Chesterton is probably the best English exponent of what de Gaulle was on about.

...It [Christianity] hates that combination of two colours which is the feeble expedient of the philosophers. It hates that evolution of black into white which is tantamount to a dirty grey....

If any one wants a modern proof of all this, let him consider the curious fact that, under Christianity, Europe (while remaining a unity) has broken up into individual nations. Patriotism is a perfect example of this deliberate balancing of one emphasis against another emphasis. The instinct of the [EU] Pagan empire would have said, “You shall all be European Union Roman citizens, and grow alike; let the German grow less slow and reverent; the Frenchmen less experimental and swift.” But the instinct of Christian Europe says, “Let the German remain slow and reverent, that the Frenchman may the more safely be swift and experimental. We will make an equipoise out of these excesses. The absurdity called Germany shall correct the insanity called France.”

De Gaulle is important because he embodied a philosophy of identity which he tried to politically realise. Some of his opposition to the English, and lot of his opposition to the Benelux countries, was primarily to stop the new European Union from becoming anti-identitarian. As a side note, de Gaulle recognised that any supranational tendency of the European Union would be fought by the English people if not their government. He admired the English for that.

What de Gaulle was trying to advocate was that strangest of beasts, a Christian Nationalism. Nationalism gets a bad rap in modern culture and its malignant versions are certainly to be deplored but the version advocated by de Gaulle was based on the deep love on his own nation and the deep love of the others. His was a true multiculturalism.

Ultimately, though, he was defeated.

The causes of his defeat were multifactoral but can be broadly divided into four categories:

Politically: The reality of the military threat posed by the Soviet Union meant that political policy was directed towards the military unification of Europe under a supranational command. NATO was not just a alliance but a supranational coordinating body. This military unification came with all sorts of economic, cultural and economic homogenising forces. Particularly when driven by the U.S.

Culturally: The barbarity and slaughter of the Second World war reawakened a profound pacifist movement within the European peoples, which saw the origin of the Second World War laying primarily in malignant nationalism. Movements which weakened the sense of identity came to cultural prominence. Incidentally, these movements fed and nurtured pacifistic strands of Christianity which worked to transform Christianity and undermine the notion of identity in it as well. Furthermore, their was a rejection of their own sense of identity by the European youth, particularly in the sixties and an idealisation of the Americanization of life. De Gaulle literally  had the cultural rug pulled underneath him.

Economically: The expansion of big business post war, partially facilitated by the formation of the EU, was an effort to increase the material standard of living in Europe. Europe's historical habits of protecting its own national interests meant that its market was very inefficient. This led to the dismantling of many of the protectionist barriers that was a characteristic of pre-War Europe.  The problem is, however, that an "efficient" market is a culturally homogeneous market.   When "wealth" is the primary metric of well being, sovereignty passes from the cultural elite to the economic. And as we've all seen, globalist millionaires don't care much for national sovereignty.

Deliberately: The destruction of the European national identities was not a consequence of chance misfortune, but the result of the deliberate co-option of the European Economic Community from the outset by "grey men", senior public servants,  who thought it a way to wealth and peace.  Their aim was to economically integrate the European markets to such an extent that national interests became subordinate to economic ones, thereby destroying European nationalism.  What's really interesting is that many of the men who pushed for this state of affairs have remained relatively unknown and assumed very quiet lives, outside the spotlight despite the profound effect that their policies have cause. Perhaps the "greatest" of the these men, someone who should be considered as a type of "anti-de Gaulle" and yet was perhaps of the greatest influence in the destruction of the modern nation state:

Jean Monnet.

De Gaulle, England and the EU

 Back to regular programming.

One of the reasons why I've been harping on about De Gaulle recently is because, after re-examining his life, I'm of the conclusion that his "philosophy" may offer a way forward for the "right". But the man needs to be heard, and that's difficult in Anglo-Saxon culture because he has been the victim of much calumny. One of the reasons why I have put up the last few posts is to show that a lot of the charges against him are false.  I wish to "rehabilitate" him with regard to the Anglosphere, if only so that people will start to engage his ideas. So I thought I'd tackle the last great misconception of him, and that was his treatment of the English with regard to their entry into the EU.

Most contemporary accounts of this episode in De Gaulle's life paint his refusal as being the product of spite and an attempt at revenge for the humiliation he suffered as dependent ally of the British.  Indeed, Jackson's account of the saga is totally devoid of the context in which his decisions were made and furthers the "mainstream" narrative. The reality is, of course, far more complex and far more interesting. 

I would recommend to those who can be bothered, this excellent lecture on the subject by Professor Vernon Bogdanor of Gresham College. The .pdf of the lecture can be found here. For those who can't be interested  here's a brief executive summary:

1) At the time of the formation of the Common Market, the UK was invited to join. It thought the thing a bit of a joke and refused.

2) Once the Common Market was formed it's economic and political success surprised the UK. Suddenly, the Common market was becoming the dominant power in Europe and by failing to join it, the UK was unable to influence it.

3) Charles de Gaulle becomes President of France.

4) England then reverted back to it's traditional policy of opposing the dominant power in Europe. It primarily aimed to do this by forming the European Free Trade Association. The aim of this organisation was to "dilute" the EU and thereby weaken it. The UK actually threatened the Common Market with sanctions if it did not trade with it.

5) When this failed, the UK then applied for membership, but it did not want to join under the same criteria of membership as the other states. It wanted a special membership which would privilege it in the EU.

6) De Gaulle--and the other nations-- said No. Firstly, because membership rules were the same for everyone, no exceptions. Secondly, the real sticking point was the Common Agricultural Policy. Britain's economy was incompatible with it. Britain's economy had to change but it was impossible for it to do so at the time. De Gaulle, said that when the economy changed it would be welcome to come in.

7) The Empty Chair Crisis happens. This was huge event which set the formation of the modern "supranational" EU. De Gaulle recognised that it was both a tactical victory and a strategic defeat of the concept of a "Europe des Patries".

8) Britain applies again to join the EU. Its economy hasn't changed but the political climate of the other EU countries has. They--with the exception of Gaullist France--become keen on the notion of a "supranational" EU.  De Gaulle objects in an attempt to stop the change in the EU character.

9) De Gaulle in an attempt to stop the subversion from within the EU, invites the British to secret exploratory talks with regard to entering the EU under "looser" terms. The British use the oportunity to exploit this offer by announcing this confidential request to the rest of the EU.

10) Charles de Gaulle dies.

This clip from the series, Yes Minister is very close to the truth of things.

The bottom line is that De Gaulle's objection to the British membership of the EU was not based on personal animus but on a realistic understanding of the incompatibility between the UK and the EU.

He received a lot of abuse for his position, especially by the English and the Americans, but history has proven him right:

While de Gaulle might today feel warranted in his skepticism with regards to the British vote, he might also find himself sympathizing with the nationalist sentiments that have gained ground following the referendum. While de Gaulle questioned the UK’s passion for European integration, his idea of a united Europe did not exactly match some of the motivations that have been driving the EU’s integration process. For de Gaulle, a united Europe should be a Europe des patries—a Europe of states—in which each member retained its fundamental sovereignty. If that were today’s EU, perhaps Brexit would never have caught on.

Intermission: Some Developments in the Catholic Church

Most people might not be aware that the Catholic Church has just updated its code of Canon Law. In itself it's not really a big deal but the reasons for doing so are very interesting. As I see it, it represents a  development in the thinking of some members of the hierarchy. Francis writes (via Google Translate):

In the past, the lack of perception of the intimate relationship existing in the Church between the exercise of charity and the recourse - where circumstances and justice so require - to sanctioning discipline has caused much damage. [ED: Understatement of the year!] This way of thinking - experience teaches - risks leading to living with behaviors contrary to the discipline of morals, whose remedy is not only exhortations or suggestions. This situation often carries with it the danger that with the passage of time, such behaviors become consolidated to the point of making it more difficult to correct and in many cases creating scandal and confusion among the faithful. This is why the application of penalties becomes necessary on the part of Pastors and Superiors.The negligence of a Pastor in having recourse to the penal system makes it clear that he does not fulfill his function correctly and faithfully, as I have expressly warned in recent documents, including the Apostolic Letters given in the form of a "Motu Proprio" 

Executive Summary: The Church emphasised Mercy to the criminal at the expense of Justice to the victims, with the predictable, to anyone with half a brain, consequences. This is the "theology" behind the sexual abuse saga in the Church.

Some of the commentary about the changes is also interesting. As one of the Vatican spokesmen said with regard to previous version of the code:

In many places, punishments were mentioned only as a possibility, and the whole text gave the impression that it was almost merciless to apply punishments.

John Paul II used to talk about the "contraceptive mentality" when dealing with his opponents on matters of sexual morals but here we have a clear example of the "kenotic mentality" when being applied matters of Justice and Mercy.  While the new changes are a welcome development, the problem is that this mentality is still strongly entrenched throughout all layers of the Catholic hierarchy and it is part of the "operating culture" of the institution. Francis himself, while to be applauded for this move, has internalised much of the spirit, especially with his attempts at  delegitimising the death penalty.  It's also an attitude also prevails in many other Christian denominations.

Justice and Mercy are fundamentally opposed concepts because mercy means sparing the criminal some of his just deserts, and the victim something that is owed to him.  The Church seems to have forgotten that Justice is always obligatory, while Mercy, discretionary, and only to be applied in the context of a greater good. 

Now what needs to be understood is that what produced this change in the Church's hierarchy was not "deep reflection, prayer and spiritual retreats", but a hostile secular world exposing plain the hypocrisy between belief and practice in the clergy. i.e. the Clergy had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this realisation. 

De Gaulle and the Americans: II

French-US relations took a dive after the Second World War and it needs to be understood as not a particularly "de Gaulle thing".  The French and American approaches world views were fundamentally different,  of which de Gaulle represented one pole.  I've edited this excellent article by Bernard Fall, which appeared in the New York Times in the '60's. It goes over some of the issues which chafed and is written by an American with an intimate insight into the French perspective.

*********************************

IN December, 1942, a few weeks after the liberation of North Africa, the late Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, arrived in Algiers. One of the problems he had to deal with concerned the Free French minister for finance. “About this man,” said Morgenthau to Ambassador Robert Murphy, “I think, we should get rid of him.”Murphy, who knew the man's services to the Allied cause and his pro-American sentiments, eloquently objected, but Morgenthau was adamant and the Free French were told that one of their key civil servants was “unacceptable.” He was summarily dismissed.

Today, that official, Maurice Couve de Murville, is Foreign Minister of France and a key figure in French American relations.

In July, 1945, a French lieutenant-colonel.was parachuted into Japanese held North Vietnam as the new governor‐designate. Captured by Communist Vietminh guerrillas, he was beaten and tortured, and his aide was murdered by poison. American liaison officers with the Vietminh refused to help, arguing that the Potsdam Agreement did not provide for the return of French control to Indochina.

Today, that French officer, Pierre Messmer, is Minister of Defense, and a key figure in France's disagreements with the United States over NATO and the Multilateral Nuclear Force (M.L.F.). At least two other members of President de Gaulle's cabinet were also imprisoned in Hanoi while American military missions were there.

AND then, there were the wartime relations between the Free French leaders and the United States. “I am sorry,” Roosevelt confided to Winston Churchill on May 8, 1943, “but it seems to me the conduct of the Bride continues to be more and more aggravated. His course and attitude is well‐nigh in- tolerable. ... de Gaulle may be an honest fellow but he has the messianic complex. Further, he has the idea that the people of France itself are strongly behind him personally. This I doubt.

On the other hand, America's relations with the Nazi's French puppets at Vichy were discouragingly “normal” until late in the war. The United States maintained an embassy there until almost one year after Pearl Harbor—in fact, until Pierre Laval (later executed for treason) expelled the American mission after the North African landings. When the Free French liberated two tiny Vichy‐held islands near Newfoundland, Washington indignantly demanded their return to Vichy; and in North Africa, Americans at first insisted on dealing with Vichy officials who were universally despised.

Having failed to Impose them as leaders on the Free French (it is amusing, with the benefit of hindsight, to  see wartime American diplomats refer to de Gaulle as a “British puppet”), Washington became the last of the Allied nations to treat the de Gaulle administration as the legal government of France. This happened five months after France was liberated—and only after America had failed to impose an Allied Military Government, which would have issued uncontrolled amounts of “liberation currency”—something not even the Nazis had done.

From then on, French‐American relations went downhill. Only the openness of disagreement changed from time to time. Washington would tend to “go easy” on France whenever French acquiescence was required; and conversely, Paris would rein in its temper whenever it needed American economic and military support. But neither side was ever really fooled by the other.

As seen by France, the United States was first of all (but to a lesser extent than Britain) “guilty” of allowing Nazi Germany to become a military Frankenstein. The “Anglo‐Saxons,” for the sake of “peace,” had leaned heavily on France in 1936 when Hitler's troops entered the Rhineland in violation of the Versailles Treaty. France again yielded to Anglo‐American pressure when she stopped helping the Spanish Republic against the Fascists, and when “peace for 20 years”, was bought at Munich by selling out Czechoslovakia. And France was left almost alone to face the onslaught of the Nazi Wehrmacht in 1940.

In 10 months of “Phony War,” Britain contributed five infantry divisions (as against 103 French) and hardly more than an armored brigade (as against France's three divisions). The The Germans fielded 126 divisions (including 10 armored) and the result was the bloody débâcle of Dunkirk.

Dunkirk, a name which stands almost as a victory for “Anglo‐Saxons” since more than a quarter‐million Britons were saved, is still a synonym for betrayal to the French. To this day, everybody remembers the gallant Britishs ships at Dunkirk; the fact that 10 French destroyers were sunk defending the evacuation (as against six British) is usually forgotten. Echoes of the fear of another “Anglo‐Saxon” Dunkirk may well be heard in de Gaulle's speeches about a French national nuclear striking force.

Senator J. W. Fulbright, in his “Old Myths and New Realities.” assures France that a “third World War could not possibly follow the pattern of 1914 and 1939, in which France was attacked while the United States remained temporarily unscathed . . .” To de Gaulle and millions of his countrymen, however, it did happen—twice in their lifetimes—and the tragic consequences of American lateness are writ large on French tombstones. In war dead, France lost 1,357,800 men in 1914-1918, compared with Britain's 908,371 and America's 126,000. From 1939-1945, the totals of dead and missing were 580,000; 412,000 and 325,000 respectively.

The collapse of France in June, 1940, however, revealed the fragility of her military edifice and political fabric. From then on, despite sympathy for the plight of the French people and admiration for the gallantry of the Free French, the United States never took France quite seriously again. After the war, France was regarded as a sort of king‐sized “banana republic” whose continual changes of government and chaotic finances inspired a stream of books and articles written in the vein of bedroom farce.

France then was fairly easy for American and British statesmen to handle. If the reigning Government coalition balked at a given policy, they could be fairly sure that another one would be along, like the proverbial street car, that would probably accept it. Whether it was over the Indochina War (the French were ready to negotiate in 1952 but were told to keep fighting to ease the pressure in Korea), or the ill‐fated Suez expedition, the French were in no position to uphold their views even in matters affecting them vitally. De Gaulle—with grating effect—dubbed this the period of “American hegemony.” It ended with the birth of the Fifth Republic.

Today, the really important question is: Do American and French interests really collide throughout the world — from NATO to Vietnam, Peking, Latin America and the United Nations—or is there merely a conflict in “styles?”

HERE again, there is a clue in the wartime relations between France and the U. S. Both de Gaulle and Washington agreed that France's fall in 1940 was due as much to moral decay as to military defeat. Hence, in de Gaulle's view, the rebuilding of a French mystique was an immensely important factor in putting France back into the war on a large scale. Roosevelt, too, was interested in getting the French back into the war, but merely as soldiers —not with a French Government (and, above all, not with a mystique).His representative in Algiers expressed that point of view to de Gaulle in these terms: “The United States Government and people are not thinking politically about France, but are thinking solely in terms of getting on with the war and defeating Hitler.”

This difference in attitude is essentially what is wrong with American‐French relations today. The Americans, practical and pragmatic as ever, are constantly “getting on with the war,” whether against poverty at home or the Vietcong in South Vietnam. The French, on the other hand, want to see Europe united and Communism contained on a more lasting political basis than a precarious balance of military power. The difference, therefore, is not so much in the aims of policy as in the range of policy.

THE French feel that alliances .constructed under enemy pressure tend to disintegrate when the immediate threat recedes. This is what happened to the anti‐German alliances of 1914-18 and of 1939-45—and it may well be the fate of NATO unless it is given meaningful political underpinnings.

The United States, however, feels that Europeans are too steeped in their “petty quarrels of the past” and, at the same time, “unrealistic” when they call the American‐Cuban dispute, for example, a “petty quarrel.” De Gaulle's lack of tact in expressing his differences, which are more apparent than real, is particularly wounding because tactlessness seems such an “un‐French” attribute.

Washington hardly needs a reminder from Paris, for example, that its attitude toward China is somewhat rigid; that the war in Vietnam is not going according to plan; that the collapse of Castro is not imminent, or that the Congo, four years and $400 million dollars later, is at best exactly where it was. American reactions to French doubts or advice, however, were typified by President Kennedy in a television interview after de Gaulle's first resounding statement on Vietnam:

“[France] doesn’t have any forces there or any program of economic assistance, so while these expressions are welcome, the burden is carried, as it usually is, by the United States and the people there...we are glad to get counsel, but we should like a little more assistance, real assistance....”

De GAULLE must have read that statement with a sardonic smile (if he read it at all), for it embodied precisely the same kind of reproach as the French have often addressed to their American ally : If you can’t help me, at least don’t bother me. In fact, the French aid program to South Vietnam is still larger than that of all other nations combined (except for the United States). Worldwide French foreign aid—thanks to France's own réhabilitation through the Marshall Plan—is today second only to America's in dollar value and, as a percentage of gross national product, far greater—2.2 per cent as against 0.9 per cent for the United States.

Yet there is no disguising the fact that today the United States and France are out of step. Many Americans seem to believe that the divergence began with de Gaulle and will finally be burled with him, but that will prove as much an illusion as the hope that aggressive Communism would be buried with Stalin, who never challenged the United States as directly as Khrushchev did with his missiles in Cuba.

It was not de Gaulle who began building the French nuclear arsenal, but the French Socialist Premier Guy Mollet. It was not de Gaulle who excluded Britain from the Common Market as much as the accumulated rancor built up by Britain's attitude toward the Common Market in its early days under the Fourth Republic. And it was not de Gaulle who turned down the idea of an‐integrated European army but the French Parliament under Prime Minister Mendès France.

Yet again, conflicts of “style” have counted for much. French leaders were deliberately (and often humiliatingly) excluded from conferences at Casablanca, Cairo, Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam. President Kennedy called British Prime Minister Macmillan to Nassau first,and then made a joint offer to de Gaulle of an inter-allied nuclear force. Coming from an American leader, who, like F.D.R., could rightfully take pride in his “style,” this smacked of deliberate insult. Even to have attempted to make the strategic control of nuclear weapons the subject of a unilateral Anglo‐American decision vitiated the whole idea for the French, regardless of the intrinsic merits of the project.

It is precisely because the Franco‐American rift is not a “Gaullist challenge”—as Senator Fulbright describes it—but a deep‐seated crisis of mutual confidence that restoring the entente cordiale between the United States and her oldest ally will require a great deal of give and take on both sides.

DISAGREEMENTS with the United States over the Common Market or the Multilateral Force are symptoms of a need for what the French like to call “mutual respect.” It merely confirmed their belief, for example, that Britain's potential role in the Common Market was as an American “Trojan Horse” when de Gaulle's veto on Britain's entry was greeted with louder howls of indignation in Washington than in London. Or, when after being told at least once a week that the United States treats all her allies “equally,” France is confronted with what she fancies to be further evidence of a “special relationship” between Washington and London — as in the Nassau agreement on nuclear arms. France is not content to be treated on a footing of equality with Luxembourg, Iceland and the former enemy states.