France becomes an island
MARC ULLMANN
Paris—As the six member-governments of the European Community prepare for their grand confrontation in Brussels next week there is no gainsaying the fact that the 'British affair' has totally failed to provoke a wave of anti- gaullism in French public opinion. To imagine otherwise would be wishful thinking.
• In the last few days I have talked to several prominent politicians from both goyernthent and opposition here, and they all agree that the question of British entry into the European Community 'has no electoral content.' Last Monday L'Express published an opinion poll showing that by a majority of 42 to 32 per cent the French reckon that it is impossible to 'bring the Britain of today into the Common Market'—and this notwithstanding a majority reckon the British to be France's best ally.
' The explanation seems to be that in matters of foreign policy de Gaulle retains his dominant influence over public opinion. The French, having been accustomed to being loved—or at least liked—abroad for the past hundred years, 'simply' do not take seriously the Francophobe sentiments now sweeping the United States and, many parts of western Europe as well. The old Man annoys them, but it really doesn't matter: that seems to be the attitude. If it is said—as one 'British official said to a group of Frenchmen in my hearing the other day—that it most certainly does matter: that Britain fought on in 1940 net because of the Nazi concentration camps (whose existence was largely unknown) but because she could not accept a European order from which -the was excluded; that de Gaulle, viewed from London, has too much in common with Philip II'of Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon and Hitler— then we French are not merely astonished, we are indignant. We reply—and it's true—that France is threatening nobody.
Even when they find his choice of 'words distasteful, most Frenchmen look upon their President with the sort of indulgence which is extended to a member of the family who has done great deeds in the past and who today 'remains a joy to listen to, because he speaks.so *ell. They cannot grasp the fact that his great services in the pait, particularly his achievement in resolving the Algerian war, and his command of the language of Moliere, count for little abroad. There is something strikingly provincial about the state of French public opinion just now, and this is not confined to the man in the street. Admittedly the leaders of the opposition, from Guy Mollet on the left to Lecanuet mkt Duhamel in the centre, denounce the General's behaviour towards Britain. But they only do so in passing: they concentrate their fire on the Government's social and economic policies. As for the gaullists, if there is one thing that really doesn't disturb their sleep, it is the British affair. 'Politicians,' one of them said to me the other day, 'like to tell us the sky is always blue; de Gaulle, however, has the honesty to remind us of the existence of clouds. What his critics cannot forgive is his frankness.
Provincials to the core, the gaullists honestly be- lieve the President is only saying what every- body else is thinking. When they meet foreigners —and this cannot always be avoided—they are at a loss. Witness last week's Western European Union assembly in Paris. Every single one of the foreign delegates denounced the gaullist attitude, their comments ranging from Sir Alec Douglas-Home's conversational aside about 'egotistical and narrow-minded' nationalism to the description by Etienne de la Vallee Poussin, the Belgian Senator, of the last press conference as 'a scandal without precedent in the annals of any government and indeed of any dictator- ship.'
The four or five Gaullist deputies present were deeply shocked. One of them resigned his position as rapporteur of one of the assembly's committees, and his colleagues en- tirely approved. 'We are treated like Daniel in the lion's den,' M Nessler complained; and M de Grainy added, 'We're not prepared to put up with just anything.' They simply could not understand how the representatives of neigh-• bouring countries could speak of their leader thus : they have sat at the feet of the master for too long.
Some gaullists, it is true, are anxious to lower the temperature. M de Lipkowski, who is both a gaullist and a • sincere believer in a United Europe, has published his plan for a probation- ary period for Britain, during which the British would complete their transition into 'Euro- peanism' under the supervision of a mixed com- mission. He claims to have been given strong encouragement by a British MP 'close to Mr Wilson.' It matters not that the British Prime Minister has dismissed such propositions time and again : for M de Lipkowski 'realism' means taking account of General de Gaulle.
So the French government sees no reason for disquiet. On his return from Japan last week M Couve de Murville did not bother to tell his officials to fill out the details of what the General meant by 'association.' The difficulty over this remains that if agriculture is excluded the French farmers would be in uproar, while if it is included the negotiation would be just as complex as that for full membership.
Alone among his colleagues M Maurice Schumann, Minister of Technology, openly favours an association limited to industrial trade. This is because he is anxious to follow up the possibilities of technological cooperation with Britain. He has recently drafted a docu- ment in conjunction with his German opposite number, enumerating the projects which might be carried out 'a sept.' Here again, Mr Wilson's insistence that the technological community must go hand in hand with the political com- munity is blandly ignored.
So what? Well, the Germans beaver away at their scheme for 'entry by stages,' which would involve neither association (which Mr Wilson won't hear of) nor full membership (which the General won't touch). De Gaulle is not particularly worried. He applies to Chan- cellor Kiesinger precisely the same approach as he applies at home to M Giscard d'Estaing. He warns each of them that they must accept his view or he will break up, in the one case, the Common Market, and, in the other, the parlia- mentary coalition. Admittedly in both cases the General has at least as much to lose as they have, but then he is a past master at what is usually called 'deterrence' in a military context or 'blackmail' in a political context.
So the popular view in Paris is that the Com- mon Market is certainly in for storms; but that these will pass, as others have done before, and meanwhile the British will stay out in the cold.
Previous page
