Your trusted source

Press TV has interviewed Ian Williams with Foreign Policy in Focus to talk about the drop in French President Francois Hollande's approval rating.

Press TV: Do you think that his (Hollande's) government will be able to survive?

Williams: Well, that depends. His prime minister is actually quite popular, which is interesting, because his prime minister was elected as an avowed sort of right-wing social democrat. So, his ratings are actually very high.

Yet, here we have Hollande who has been... whose plummeting ratings reflect the fact that there is a sense of betrayal. He was elected... initially he opposed austerity. He tried to stand up for what the French considered to be their social rights and then he did a complete volte-face. He turned around and he reduced taxation on businesses and cut spending and there are many both on the left and just ordinary Keynesian economics who would suggest that this was a counter-productive move at the time of a recession, especially when you have an economy like France’s, which has such a large public state-dominated sector, cutting back government spending is possibly the most catastrophic thing you can do when now is the time you should be pumping money into the economy to get it moving again.

So, it’s the fact that he has betrayed them to some extent and interestingly his personal life, when it was revealed that he was having yet another affair, his popularity actually shot up briefly earlier this year. So, the French do these things differently.

Press TV: Well, Mr. Williams, how effective can a leader actually be with only an 18 percent popularity rating?

Williams: Well, he officially still has the power. It’s in the nature of incumbents that you can turn things around if he decides he truly and deeply and sincerely wants to get reelected, he can open the spigots of public cash. That’s what all the other incumbents would do. He can sort of re-reverse his policies and start pumping money into the economy on the run up to the election. These things are possible, but I still think that will be a sense of regret.

If you’re an honest leader you can go to your people and say look, I don’t want to do this, we’re being forced by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the German-dominated European Central Bank (ECB) and the others to do policies which we think are ridiculous. So, we’re going to try mitigate them as much as possible. But I get the impression this is not what he is saying. He’s basically become a true believer in what used to be known as the Washington Consensus that public spending is the root of all evil and it should be stopped and giving money to rich people and tax cuts automatically generates the economy. This is what [former US President] Ronald Reagan was saying and I don’t think that goes down well with the people of France, of all places.

Press TV: What do you think Mr. Williams, looking at the involvement, the French involvement in Africa? Obviously they are going to be spending money for sending these troops there. Has it had a negative effect on the economy and also do you think it has a negative effect as far as the French perspective wise as far as what this current government is doing?

Williams: I’m not sure, as Richard said. I think it’s a concept of French policy and it’s a mixture because in some of these cases, the people wanted them to intervene. We did have fans of terrorists holding things to run. You saw what they did to the liveries in Timbuktu and places like that. But on the other hand, there is also this pervasive nostalgia for the great days of France. Most notoriously your commentator mentioned in the beginning about Rwanda. I think one of the most shameless operations in modern history was when the French got the United Nations franchise for operation Turquoise, which was basically going to rescue the people who were carrying out the genocide in Rwanda. It’s one of the reasons why the Rwandans actually made English their official language instead of French in retaliation.

The French have very strange ideas about that and they still do about the whole Africa complex, the France-Afrique and sometimes it’s humanitarian and sometimes it’s resources and sometimes it’s all the alliances between the rulers of these countries and Paris. It’s complex.

Press TV: You just said as far as the glory days, the French glory days, but we look at France’s colonialist past and it may have been glorious perhaps for a few in France itself, but I would imagine that for most of those that were being ruled over by colonial rule that that was not the case. Plus, if the French, do you think that the French are actually supportive of this intervention still in Africa? That actually it could give them back that so-called glory? Is that part of it?

Williams: I think that’s an honest point for them, well, not an honest point. Of course, I take your point about the glory, but this the way the French look at it. That they used to think that France is a major power; they did not take decline as well as the British in that sense and they had the humiliation of losing World War II which they had to get over and the occupation, it’s all something that comes together quite often and as Richard said both Socialist and conservative governments have pursued those types of policies regardless. It was a Socialist government that fought much of the war in Algeria for example. It was a Socialist government as I remember, that fought war in Indo-China. There is a consistency here and it’s not that surprising that this particular French Socialist president and prime minister would pursue those policies and to do with a large degree of consensus from the French people, I think.

Press TV: In your perspective, looking at the nuclear talks between the P5+1, that it was actually Paris that tried to interfere and not allow this to take place and this in the name of a Socialist government, which many perhaps would be surprised at the conservative stand that this government is taking in a lot of issues especially in line with Washington?

Williams: Well, it’s not just in line with Washington. I think Hollande is being especially differential towards Israel for example. So, he’s being pulled from there as well. He’s shows a lot of reverence for Israeli pinion, especially on Iran for example. You have to remember these gyrations in French policy. You just have to remember the most effective speeches about intervention in Iraq where from the French foreign minister and the French on the UN Security Council who opposed the intervention. That was one of the keys to why [former US President George W.] Bush had to go into Iraq without a UN sanction behind it, because of French opposition. But the same French government had been part of the earlier coalition that had gone in and they tend to change quite often while preaching eternal principles.

Press TV: You just mentioned Israel and we’re looking at international policy. Do you feel that French politicians are influenced as much by the Israelis? We see a lot of force of Israel on American politicians. What about in France itself? Do they play a big role in influencing French policy?

Williams: What they do have is a sort of sentimental tie in many ways. It’s sort of a genuine feelings and friendship on the part of sections of the French ruling class. You know, in America, it’s a mixture. It’s a lot of sentiment but there is also a lot of fear of the Israeli lobby and what it would do to reelection prospects. That’s not the big factor in France by any means and in fact there is a large Muslim vote that could be lost in this way in France.

Press TV: And Mr. Williams do you think that in this short term that we’re going to see that the situation turn around in Paris? Do you think this Hollande government will be able to last over this difficult time?

Williams: It depends. If they look over the numbers and decide that they can do something to turn over the economy regardless of the principles in the IMF and to get themselves reelected, they will do so I suspect. They are not going to fall on their swords to lose an election. They will do what it takes to get the money trickling into the economy.