Chirac: the end of an era
March 11th, 2007 | 
Author: 
Chirac has presided over a range of fairly high profile controversies since beginning with his authorisation of the nuclear tests in the Pacific just after his election in 1995. Just two years later he tried to manipulate the electoral process by dissolving the parliament and forcing an election at an opportune time for his own party though, such was the opposition to this action, he ended up weakening his powerbase.
Unexpectedly facing Le Pen in the second round of elections in 2002, he naturally had a landslide victory. The defeat of the European constitution in 2005 was quite a blow both to him and other nations in Europe. As with the nuclear tests in 1995, he typically followed solely the interests of France in opposing the war with Iraq. Also seemingly typical of French politicians, he withdrew the proposed First Employment Contract (Contrat Première Embauche or CPE) in the face of widespread student protests against this move to make it easier to both hire and fire young people.
On the whole, I think he will be remembered as one of the most typically French politicians. He seemed to consider only the interests of France abroad and followed (on the whole) the desires (if not always the needs) of the French people within the country.
Although it seemed likely that he would lose the election had he stood this time around, he seemed to recognise in his speech that France needs a different type of leadership in the future, one that begins to consider more completely France’s place in Europe and that takes a firmer stand on necessary policy changes.
Copyright © 2004-2014 by Foreign Perspectives. All rights reserved.
Posted in 
Chirac will be remembered only in his role over international issues. That is the only thing he didn’t fail, and he can be quite proud of it (put aside the European constitution Treaty that failed because of him and because he underestimated the stupidity of the french).
He will be remembered as the one who chose to stand against a useless war in Iraq, and who dared say to the US that he would use France’s veto right to stop the war. Unfortunantly, the US decided to give a huge blow to the UN by commiting a war of agression. Even more unfortunately, the UK decided to follow.
He will also be remembered for his anger towards the Israeli police forces in Jerusalem, who where violently pushing aside muslims who wanted to greet Chirac.
He also will be remembered for his true and sincere love towards the African continent, and the africans will surely loose theyre best lawyer on the international scene with Chirac’s departure. On the other hand, most of the french are quite happy to see a man that is seen as an incompetent, step down from his throne of the Elysée…
The UK doesn’t so much follow America internationally as operate as the 51st American state to a large degree.
‘Tis interesting that you would record him as incompetent yet we see him as “very French”. I don’t mean that we see the French incompetent, just that he came across to us as one of the most typically French in the way that de Gaulle was.
I do understand that “from the outside” Chirac can seem very french. French in the way De Gaulle was. But that may be due to the fact that you only see Chirac as he is on the international scene. In that way, yes, he is very french ! And I don’t think he is incompetent in foreign affairs.
However, on problems like the CPE crisis, or the riots in the parisian suburbs, he seemed to have been incapable of any reaction. He didn’t understand it, has he didn’t understand that the french mostly rejected the European treaty, only because HE was supporting it !
Maybe Chirac should’ve been foreign affair minister and nothing more…
One last great achievement of Chirac, was the recognition that the french state was responsible for helping the nazis in sending french jews to the death camps. And that France should not let this be forgotten.
There is a primary school in my street, and on the front of it you can see a little memorial that says “In memory of the jewish children, send to the death camp by the nazis, AND, with the help of the french goverment. […]”
From overseas ie outside France. As you say, in general, I’d have only seen him in international affairs aside from the CPE riots and similar things that made it into international news.
Accepting that France had some responsibility for sending people to the death camps must have been a very difficult thing to acknowledge. However, I hope that it never degenerates into a “witchhunt”: the pressures that those working for the nazis at the time were under must have been tremendous.
What seems very odd from my perspective is that a number of the laws from that time remain in force. I think particularly the creation of the National Police which is, in some ways, the last remaining unit of the SS. Even now, their international reputation is one of un-necessary violence.
About the “Police Nationale”:
The bases of the police nationale date back to 1789 and the Declaration of the rights of man and citizens”. It was created to guarantee the rights of mens and citizens in France.
The term “Police Nationale” was however used for the first time under Vichy France. It puts the “police municipale” under the authority of prefects instead of mayors.
France now has three main police sections:
– The Police municipale: found in towns, it is under the authority of the mayor.
– The Police Nationale: Under the authority of the prefects of region, it is above the police municipale. It is also the only police order in Paris where no municipal police is found.
– The gendarmerie: is part of the French Army, it acts as police force in the rural areas of France.
I really don’t understand the problem you try to arise with the Police Nationale created under the Vichy regime. I think police forces all over the world have a bad reputation, and the french police, in some ways, is a lot better that police forces in the US for example.
The bad image of the french police, is surely due to the images of the way the police handled the riots in France. But you should keep in mind, that French police is considered to be one of the best anti-riot police on the planet. The police officers that were trained in Germany for the soccer world cup, and in Athenes for the 2004 Olympics, were trained by french forces.
In France, it is very commun (specially in Paris) to organize big marches of protests in the streets, and of course, all those marches are accompagnated by the CRS (the kind of anti-riot police part of the Police Nationale) who try to avoid and/or contain riots.
I’m a student, and therefore, I haven’t got any nice feelings towards the CRS and other police forces, I’ve been “attacked” by tear-gas from the police during the CPE protests. But calling the Nationale Police as “last remaining unit of the SS”, is a huge mistake. There is nothing in commun between the SS and the french police, and thinking seems to show that you have a very false image of the french police, or worst, a great misunderstanding of what the SS were.
Let me remind you that the SS were charged in Nuremberg as a criminal organisation who comited genocides and crimes of war !
Maybe the fact that you are australian (I thought I undestood you were) explains that you don’t fully apreciate what the meaning of SS truly is. (I say it not as an insult towards australians, I myself lived in Perth for two years and travelled there many times and I really apreciate the country and the people over there, but australians offen appear to me as people not knowing much about the world and history, and not really getting interested about learning it. Obviously, they can’t be blamed to much for that as Australia is quite far away from everywhere, and they don’t really care about things that don’t directly concern them. (that may be true only for people in Perth actually, I don’t now much outside WA).
Thanks, that’s a very helpful explanation!
I had assumed (wrongly as you point out) that the reputation for excessive violence from the Police Nationale came from a history dating back to their formation under the Vichy (ie nazi-controlled) government.
Every single time we see that service in action, the pictures seem almost exclusively of them beating someone senseless. What I don’t know is if the images that we always see overseas of that police service portray the totality of their actions accurately. However, as a consequence of these images their reputation amongst the public overseas isn’t that they are excellent at riot control but that they are completely useless in that getting to the point of requiring violence like that is, to us, a sign of failure.
I’m British, Wendy is Australian. Even though I was raised a good deal closer to France than her, my French history lessons consisted of things like Waterloo, the 100 years war and so on ie just where you guys were at war with us. In practical terms, we’re taught the history of the British Empire; I imagine that you guys are similarly taught the history of the French empire. I’m hoping to get a chance to correct that in due course but I’m finishing off a Modern Languages degree which is taking up my time these days.
And my “image” of british history is what I learned about Napoleon (except that we study battles like Austerlitz and Ulm instead of Waterloo or Trafalgar of course) and the 100 years war is mainly based on the fact that Joan of Arch was a saint burned by evil British people ;o). Than we learn that the British colonized the half of Africa and France took the other half. That our joint efforts to get back the Suez channel were smashed by the US and finaly that Chamberlain “chosed disonour and got war” just like Dalladier. Finaly we learn that the UK (like nearly every other allied nation actually) disliked De Gaulle but nontheless helped to free France from the germans. At last, we learn that Madam Tatcher managed to get unfair deals with the EU, and that she cries the death of her friend Pinochet.
The last thing some french also know, is that the UK and the Australians critisized the french Atomic test in the pacific saying they could’ve done it at home… they tend to forget that many pacific islands belong to France, that the tests were underground tests, that they took place thousands of kilometres away from australia and were quite harmmless, whereas the brit’s dropped bombs in the victoria desert, they weren’t underground tests, and they “forgot” to warn the aboriginals living around about the tests.
I won’t mention the fact that we learn that this cool plane our two nations made together is spelled Concorde and not Concord, and that the french will never understand how a human being can eat pudding ;o) !