'Freedom Fries' Reveal U.S. Insecurity, French Virtue

Author: Daryn Cambridge

When the First World War broke out in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson initially proclaimed United States neutrality in reference to the European war. It would take the sinking of the Lusitania (1915) that killed over 1,000 people, and the sinking of five U.S. vessels (1917) by German forces, for Wilson to finally declare war on Aug. 6, 1917. With the accumulation of three years of violent conflicts and the death of many Americans, resentment towards the Germans started to pop up back home. In many restaurants sauerkraut was renamed "Liberty Cabbage" and hamburgers were renamed, "Salisbury Steaks" (www.usembassy.de). Do I sense a bit of history repeating itself once again, just as "Duck and Cover" was revived as "Duct Tape and Plastic Sheet Covering?"
Present Day, 2003: there seems to be a returning trend of renaming foods in order to express American resentment towards a certain European country. In many restaurants across America and most shamefully in the Congressional cafeteria, French fries have been renamed "Freedom Fries," and French toast renamed "Freedom Toast." All the while, some Americans have taken to the streets to dump their French wine down gutters, and publicly dispose of their French cheeses and other "Old Europe" products. This is quite possibly the single most embarrassing and shameful act America has perpetrated -- except perhaps the possibility that the CIA fabricated evidence alleging the existence of an Iraqi nuclear program -- in this inane debacle to garner support for a war against Iraq, to which France has vehemently objected. This is the case for two reasons.
First, it can be seen that certain Americans have revived this form of World War I protest in attempts to display their disapproval of French actions within the United Nations. Bringing into account the historical roots of these name-changing forms of propaganda (of which I am sure our Congressmen and women are well aware), the connection that is created between what Germany had done to Americans in World War I compared to what France has done in reference to a potential war with Iraq, is a disgrace to what some Americans find as a way to protest.
Second, some people think that France's ties with Iraq are evidence enough to boycott French products and they accuse France of opposing war to protect their oil interests and trade relations with the "rogue" nation. This is a blatant attempt by the American media to turn one of the most popular arguments used to protest this war away from the oil drunk United States and instead towards France. The United States media would lead us to believe that France's economy has strong trade relations with Iraq. This is absolutely absurd. The French Ambassador to the Unites States, Jean-David Levitte, said that trade relations with Iraq represent only 0.3 percent of France's total trade. He also said, "If we wanted to protect our supposed trade or oil interests in Iraq, at the moment when war has been decided by Washington, we would jump-in the American jargon-to participate fully and share the benefits of the victory" (http://www.info-france-usa.org). And again, if the media wants to bring up French ties with Iraq since the 1970s, should they not mention that France had no qualms in voting in favor of the U.S. led forces in Desert Storm in 1991. Could it not be that the legitimacy of this proposed war is suspect, especially coming from a country that, in the last two years, cannot drop enough bombs to demonstrate its might to impoverished countries, and whose administration is made up of big business, corporate energy swindlers (Dick Cheney - Halliburton, Donald Rumsfeld - Occidental, Condoleezza Rice - Chevron-Texaco, Gale Norton - BP-Amoco, George W. Bush - Harken). The ulterior motives behind a U.S. led war in Iraq are far too blatant to be ignored by the international community.
Finally, if one finds the need to condemn France for its ties with Iraq and its oil interests in the region, their efforts would be better directed towards the United States. The desire the U.S. has in establishing energy contracts in Iraq to sustain a highly oil-dependent economy -- making rich energy executives even richer -- is far greater than any interest France has in establishing dominance in the region. And as far as "ties" go, the U.S. gave Saddam Hussein the chemical and biological weapons technology that he used to kill Iranians and the Kurds -- an act which the media constantly deplores while rarely mentioning our involvement (www.washingtonpost.com).
Vice President Dick Cheney sold oil equipment to the "the world's most brutal dictator" after the Gulf War, when sanctions had already been put in place (www.newsmax.com).
Finally, the war has not even begun, yet American energy companies are already lining up to bid for oil contracts in a "liberated" Iraq; and you guessed it, the top of list reads: Halliburton.

Daryn Cambridge is a English/philosophy joint major from Arlington, Va.