In order to have success in politics one must have some ability to gauge the public mood. Exhibit A: French President Nicolas Sarkozy. France is well known for its strikes. It is not unusual for the entire country to shut down on a whim from its unions. This has made French politicians both on the Left and the Right reluctant to address the Fifth Republic’s bloated welfare state. It was only a matter of time before the unions would test the resolve of Sarkozy.
French railroad workers went on strike in mid-November to protest proposed changes by Sarkozy to their pensions. If one is fortunate enough to work on the French railroad one can retire as early as 50. Nice work if you can get it, but with fewer workers to pay for it one is asking for financial trouble. Sarkozy wants railroad pensions in line with the private sector where most French workers retire at 65. However, the railroad workers would soon be joined by civil servants and students. It seemed inevitable that Sarkozy would cave in as had his predecessors. However, Sarkozy weathered the storm and held his peace. Sarkozy knew three things. First, that a prolonged strike was unpopular with French commuters. Second, the unions were out of touch with their members. Third, that the French public would not tolerate sabotage and violence when it came to light that rail tracks and electrical connections had been vandalized thereby endangering public safety. It was on the final point that Sarkozy finally spoke out against the strike. Soon after, support for the strike amongst railroad workers would collapse as an overwhelming majority of workers voted to end the week-long work stoppage. Of course, the railroad workers will probably see their pay increase in exchange for surrendering early retirement. And there will be more battles with civil servants, students and other unions to come. However, Sarkozy read the tea leaves correctly and came out on top in this fight.
But gauging the public mood is by no means the only means by which one achieves political success. One must also exercise good judgment. In the midst of this battle with the railroad workers unions, Sarkozy took the time to receive Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on November 20th. Why would the pro-American Sarkozy meet with the anti-American Chavez? Answer: Ingrid Betancourt.
If are you familiar with South American politics, Betancourt was a candidate for the Presidency of Colombia in 2002 when she was kidnapped by guerillas from FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and has not been seen since. While born in Colombia, Betancourt grew up France where her father was a diplomat. Since taking office in May, Betancourt’s release has been a top priority for Sarkozy. He has called for FARC to release Betancourt in exchange for the Colombian government to release Rodrigo Granda, FARC’s “foreign minister”. Sarkozy also opposes any military rescue of Betancourt. Shortly after taking office, Sarkozy met with Luis Carlos Rostrepo, a special envoy for Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. Sarkozy told Rostrepo that Betancourt’s release should “be achieved as part of a negotiated settlement and a humanitarian agreement.”
So where does Hugo Chavez come in? In August, Patricia Poleo, a Venezuelan born journalist now living in the United States, claimed that Betancourt was being held in Venezuela. Poleo’s claim was strongly denied both in Venezuela and in Colombia. But shortly thereafter Chavez offered his services as a mediator between the Colombian government and FARC to secure the release of Betancourt and other hostages, including three American military contractors. President Uribe, a close ally of the Bush Administration, agreed to let Chavez intervene. Sarkozy has strongly supported Chavez’s involvement in this process. At their meeting, Chavez was to purportedly offer proof to Sarkozy that Betancourt was still alive.
Two days after Sarkozy met with Chavez, it was discovered that Chavez had met with Colombian General Mario Montoya against the explicit wishes of President Uribe. When President Uribe learned of Chavez’s transgression he informed Chavez that his services would no longer be required. Sarkozy’s office urged Uribe to reconsider its decision concerning Chavez. A spokesman for Sarkozy stated, “We continue to think that President Chavez is the best chance for freeing Ingrid Betancourt and all the other hostages.”
So why does Sarkozy trust Chavez?
Aaron Goldstein was a card carrying member of the socialist New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP). Since 09/11, Aaron has reconsidered his ideological inclinations and has become a Republican. Aaron lives and works in Boston.
After all, this is the Hugo Chavez that repeatedly referred to President Bush as the devil while speaking at the UN General Assembly.
After all, this is the Hugo Chavez that referred to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as pathetic and illiterate as well as making some sexual comments about her.
After all, this is the Hugo Chavez, who earlier this month, repeatedly referred to former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar as a fascist at the Ibero-America Summit in Chile before Spanish King Juan Carlos told him to shut up.
Perhaps most importantly, this is the Hugo Chavez that has aligned himself with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and has publicly supported Iran’s nuclear program. France, under Sarkozy’s administration, has taken the lead in trying to shut down the Iranian nuclear program through sanctions at the UN. Surely, Sarkozy’s meeting with Chavez gives the Venezuelan strongman legitimacy and by extension gives legitimacy to Ahmadinejad. This has the effect of undermining his efforts against Iran.
The political acumen Sarkozy demonstrated in his handling of the French railroad workers strike is glaringly absent when it comes to bringing about the release of Ingrid Betancourt. Even Jacques Chirac thought little enough of Chavez to refuse to sell him arms.
Sarkozy’s endorsement of Chavez harms his credibility. It harms Sarkozy’s credibility in both the United States and in Spain, his European neighbor, given his diplomatic transgressions against them. It harms his credibility with President Uribe as Chavez reneged on an agreement with him. Instead of recognizing that Chavez is not a man of his word, Sarkozy has asked Uribe to ignore the breach. Imagine if Chavez had lied to Sarkozy and Uribe had told him to give Chavez another chance. Sarkozy would have become apoplectic. Sarkozy’s association with Chavez not only harms his credibility to rein in Iran’s nuclear program, it also harms his credibility in terms of his overall approach to terrorism. Both the United States and the European Union designate FARC as a terrorist organization. By supporting “a negotiated settlement” to win Betancourt’s release, Sarkozy explicitly endorses negotiations with terrorists. Sarkozy’s willingness to see negotiations with terrorists in Colombia might embolden Islamic terrorists in France to kidnap a French politician and bet he will do the same with them.
It is worth noting that back in July Sarkozy’s then wife Cecilia went to Libya and won the release of six Bulgarian medics. The medics had been tortured into confessing they had infected hundreds of children with HIV and were to be executed. The day after the six Bulgarians were released, President Sarkozy traveled to Libya to sign several new trade agreements with Colonel Qaddafi. While Sarkozy denies the trade agreements had anything to do with the release of the Bulgarian hostages, the fact he supports negotiations with FARC to secure Betancourt’s release calls his political judgment into question. It goes without saying that any head of state who considers Hugo Chavez “the best chance” at achieving anything might not have such good political judgment after all.
