Are the IMF chief sex attack allegations a “tactical opposition to French policy”?

It seems somewhat odd that a high-powered world political figure, as disconnected from reality as they often are, would be foolish enough to carry out a sexual attack in a country whose leaders could well seize upon such an event to demolish his career and damage his country’s international standing. After all “high class” prostitutes are easy to come by in the world of big business and big politics. Why take such a risk?

The current allegations against Dominique Stauss-Khan could be a “honey trap”, but let’s assume that the allegatiions are true. Such an event adds weight to the notion that our “world class political leaders” are simply petty gangster thugs hiding behind slick suits and carefully crafted speeches. For the IMF chief to believe he could carry out such a crime on foreign soil without repercussion raises questions regarding the sexual attitutes and activities of his social circles (the world’s financial and political elite). The criminal mindset is generally reflected in attitudes to sexuality.

Washington, if it wished, could probably have kept a lid on this event if it wished to – they’ve kept a lid on much worse. But they’ve made sure to get this story out to the public quickly, resulting in front page headlines globally.

A couple of years ago, in my article New Labour New Fascism New Racism I quoted US foreign policy Zbigniew Brzezinski’s stance on how America views and should relate to France’s role with the European Union. I recommend you read the whole article (which is still unfinished), but in relation to our subject here are the Brzezinski quotes taken from his revealing book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperitives;

“The politcal elites of two leading European nations – France and Germany – remain largely committed to the goal of shaping and defining a Europe that would truly be Europe. … But each is committed to a somewhat different vision and design, and neither is strong enough to prevail by itself. This condition creates for the United States a special opportunity for decisive intervention. It necessitates American engagement on behalf of Europe’s unity, for otherwise unification could grind to a halt and then gradually even be undone.” p60 (Brzezinski doesn’t state what kind of “American engagement” this will consist of)

(Regarding possible French leadership of the EU) “Even Germany could perhaps be seduced into acceptance of a united, but independent (of America) Europe, but only if in fact it felt France was in fact a global power and could thus provide Europe with the security that Germany cannot but America does.” p64-65. (This also explains the logic behind the following two statements)

“In the short run, tactical opposition to French policy and support for German leadership is justified.” p72

“America must work particularly closely with Germany in promoting the eastward expansion of Europe. American-German cooperation and joint leadership regarding this issue are essential. … Combined American-German pressure will be especially needed to obtain the required unanimous agreement of all NATO members, but no NATO member will be able to deny it if America and Germany jointly press for it.” p 79-80

“Tacit American support made it possible for France and Germany to push the process of Europe’s unification forward.” p65 (the author doesn’t state in what form this “support” took place)

Strauss-Khan, the IMF chief now subject to sex allegations in Washington, was potentially on his way to being the next French President. That will never happen now of course.

It seems that the conflict between US and French interests in who controls the European Union, are likely still at work. And there may be conflicts of interests regarding the direction of the IMF as well.

This entry was posted in European issues, World issues. Bookmark the permalink.