Sustainable Cities: Sarkozy's "Grand Paris"

In recent years, the popularity of the green movement and eco-sensitive lifestyles seems to have skyrocketed to unprecedented heights. Consumers these days are inundated with opportunities to choose “planet-saving” products, which include not just the habitual hybrid or solar panel, but also hemp-fiber sheets, organic cotton, and bags made from recycled plastic bottles. Although there seems to have been an influx of concern over environmentally friendly practices in consumer-related industries, global warming is not a new issue for the world community. Quite to the contrary, the topic has been on the international agenda for some time now, and in decades past numerous countries signed an international treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to explore ways to reduce global warming. To be sure, the UNFCCC was an important first step in the international movement against global warming. However, after realizing the need for more powerful and legally binding measures to force nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, an even more vital addition to the treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, was negotiated in 1997, and subsequently accepted by a number of countries. Undoubtedly, the most significant feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community to reduce their emissions by “an average of five percent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.”

As some deadlines have already passed and additional near, parties to Kyoto are exploring ways to make their countries environmentally sound and thus increasingly likely to meet their emissions targets. France, having ratified the Protocol in May of 2002, is one such state that is taking innovative steps to transform its capital into a more eco-friendly place, and recently “the results of a nine-month study commissioned by President Nicolas Sarkozy” aimed to transform “Paris and its surrounding suburbs into the first sustainable ‘post-Kyoto city’” were unveiled. The study called for ten architecture and urban planning agencies to put forth proposals (see one example at left) to transform Paris into a greener and more united city, specifically tackling the issue of integrating the somewhat tumultuous banlieues. Going along with the popular (if not trendy) notion of sustainable living and green consumerism, this week I decided to explore the blogosphere to see how people have been reacting to Sarkozy’s “grands plans” for Paris. One post I came across which takes a rather pragmatic stance on the possible success of such proposals, is entitled “Grand, Gai Paris,” and was written by Mario Ballesteros, an “urban enthusiast” and freelance editor. Another entry I encountered, “The Post-Kyoto City,” was written by Piers Fawkes, the founder and CEO of the company PSFK, and highlights the argument that now is the time for the US to follow France’s lead and build or modify cities across America to increase sustainability. My responses to both of these posts are included below, and are also available by way of comments posted at each of the respective sites.

Grand, Gai Paris (comment)

Thank you for this enlightening post and for taking such a realistic stance on the future of Sarkozy’s plans for the urban renewal of Paris. While certainly the President’s efforts to come up with initiatives to make the city “more sustainable, livable, and equal” seem to correspond with those of France to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as mandated by Kyoto, I also found myself questioning Sarko’s real motivations for spear-heading such a project. Indeed, the feasibility of implementing any of the recently unveiled proposals seems extremely unrealistic considering the current economic situation and general unhappiness among the Parisian population with “President Bling-Bling.” Furthermore, while the environmental ambitions of the proposals may be viable, as you mention “even the grandest of urban design schemes wouldn’t be enough to pull Paris together.” As someone who spent considerable time in the capital city last year, I am in complete accord with your statement that “to the untrained eye its really difficult to notice how Paris can be alienating.” Having lived with my own famille d’accueille in the 9th arrondissement, I rarely ventured outside the city limits; it was so easy to become enthralled with the centuries-old architecture and historical sites that I regularly forgot about the Paris of the banlieues just minutes away on the RER. Even with the international coverage of the monumental riots that occurred in 2005, many people outside of France do not realize the extent of the segregation in the capital. That being said, at the end of your post you claim that the origin of the problem in Paris is due to “an all-encompassing malaise, a case of cultural exhaustion.” It seems as though you are implying that racial rationales for tensions have become somewhat obsolete. If so, what then would you propose as a solution to the division of the city, which so harshly isolates the banlieues from the more affluent centre-ville? Do you think that any of the ten architectural firms’ proposals could provide insight as to how this problem may be solved in the future?

The Post-Kyoto City (comment)

I, too, read The New York Times article by Nicolai Ouroussoff, and found myself asking the same question you pose about urban-planning in the US. While American environmental policies may not be as advanced as those of some European nations, Sarkozy’s recent study of proposals for a “post-Kyoto city” should act as inspiration for future urban-building schemes across the nation. To be sure, the plans the study produced for Paris are by no means perfect, especially considering the amount of money it would take to implement any one of the visions in the context of the current economic crisis. Still, however lofty Sarkozy’s ambitions may seem, such initiatives as the “grand plans” show that France is taking an important step towards a future where the environment will be one of the primary considerations in urban development (see one such example at right).

Even though the US rejected the Kyoto Protocol and may thus be less inclined than other nations to work towards eco-friendly infrastructure, as you point out in your post “we are at a pivotal time where we could reclaim” cities in America “and rebuild them.” While it will be difficult to rectify the mistakes of the past, in creating and adopting environmentally sustainable structures now we would be building for the future. I think that one of the most potent examples of this, which you also touched, is the case of New Orleans. Certainly the devastation the city experienced due to Hurricane Katrina was a great tragedy. However, as Ouroussoff makes clear in his article, the disaster presented an opportunity for “architects and urban planners all over the country” to begin “a spirited investigation of how to make New Orleans safer and more sustainable.” In addition to New Orleans, what cities do you consider to be ready for such large-scale plans as those proposed for Paris? Though I currently reside in Los Angeles, I had the opportunity to live in Paris for a year and was able to experience first-hand the advantages of a concentrated urban center and efficient public transportation system. As these are both attributes that are virtually non-existent in LA, I am hopeful that with the increasing publicity caused by Sarkozy’s study and Ouroussoff’s avocation for sustainable American cities, there will be extensive revamping projects to make LA a more compact and green city in the near future.

French Food and Wine: A System of Luxury and Rules?

Cracking open a bottle of bubbly is something that most Americans have done at least once in their lifetime. Whether when bringing in the New Year, celebrating a birthday or wedding, or any other special occasion of choice, something about this particular beverage just screams merriment in our culture. While those who drink this type of wine may automatically assume that what they are consuming is “Champagne,” many are unaware that, contrary to popular belief, all sparkling wines are not created equal. In fact, strict rules are in place authorizing which wines may be called Champagne, a name that has been legally protected since 1891’s Treaty of Madrid. Surely, countless wines have been produced à la méthode champenoise, but in order for one to be legally dubbed Champagne it must come from the strictly defined Champagne region in France (see above), and subsequently pass a series of regulations set forth by the "Comité interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne." The overarching legalization process of these standards is the Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée (AOC), translating literally to mean “controlled term of origin.” The AOC, which makes it illegal to manufacture and sell a product under one of the AOC-controlled names if it does not comply with specific criteria, is overseen by the Institut National des Appellations d’Origines (INAO), a branch of the French Ministry of Agriculture that was created in 1935 to manage wine production and appellation in France. Although the French AOC is predominately known for its protection of wine designations, over the years the products it has come to include has extended to certain cheeses, butters, and other agricultural products of France. Many people would argue that systems such as the AOC might be more negative than positive, particularly wine enthusiasts who claim one of the major disadvantages to be the extent to which it stifles experimentation of wine varieties. To be sure, the AOC system in France is not perfect and it neither guarantees the quality of taste of geographically certified products nor does it mandate their automatic superiority. Rather, it “constitutes a guarantee of origin and tradition,” and in assuring that the item purchased actually comes from the region, village, or vineyard on the label, it is a system that protects both consumers and national tradition.

Many perceive the AOC as necessary in upholding the integrity and identity of products in France, though not everyone finds the system to work in their favor. One example, highlighted in an article by The New York Times, is the case of sparkling wine producers in the small Swiss village of Champagne. In 1998 an agreement was made between the European Union and Switzerland that would allow the (late) Swiss national airline, Swissair, to make stops in European cities, on the condition that the government of Switzerland would forbid the village (comprised of about 710 people) to employ the Champagne name when labeling their goods. This agreement forced the village’s wine producers to re-label their wine (see an illegal label below left), omitting the once used qualifier “du Champagne (from Champagne),” a factor thought to be responsible for the drop in village wine sales from 110,000 bottles in 2000 to just 32,000 in 2008. Undoubtedly the suffering of those in the village is terrible, but the law and its enforcement eliminate the possible exploitation of the “Champagne” name as a means to deceive consumers. Indeed, mentioned in the very same article was the example of a farmer who, following World War II, came to the Swiss village and produced a “sparkling wine which he sold as Champagne,” with a more recent example of “ a stranger from La Côte, along Lake Geneva” trying “the same trick.” By having the AOC in place, the system ultimately protects consumers by ensuring that such product trickery cannot take place, a notion reinforced by the fact that the main rationale behind the inception of the AOC law specifically for wines was to “suppress commercial frauds,” by defining strict rules and regulations pertaining to the “numerous criteria characteristic to each wine (soil, grape variety, cultivation, yield, wine making, and temperature).”

As a matter of fact, the AOC is viewed as an extremely efficient system, so much so that it has served as a model upon which many other countries have based their respective name control systems, with examples including Italy’s “Denominazione di Origine Controllata,” and South Africa’s “Wine of Origin” system. Clearly both the people and the governments of other nation-states have seen the French AOC as a success, a sentiment reiterated by the European Union’s very own laws created in 1992 to guard the quality of particular agricultural products of the EU-27 Member States. Although there are those who perceive the EU’s respective "quality schemes" as primarily economically motivated, it is hard to deny that the process, like the AOC, does not ensure that the consumer is buying the goods they believe to be renowned and region specific. After all, everyday people choose to spend extra money on products that they believe to be of higher quality due to the brand or regional recognition. With a certification mechanism in place, consumers are able to trust in the fact that, for example, the Burgundy wine and name they chose is indeed that legitimate, grape concoction from the Burgundy region in France. As the US Department of Commerce explains, certain agricultural products are “associated with their region of production because such products are generally a result of local climate, sunshine, and soil that are specific to a particular region." As many French goods have followed growing rituals for centuries, they have come to represent things of national tradition, and with globalization enabling consumers to purchase products from across the world with greater ease it is important that laws ensuring authenticity exist. Such protection in France as created by the AOC consistently ensures that products remain to be “closely linked” with each region’s “natural and human characteristics,” as well as their "historical and ancestral savoir-faire.” In defending its national products, France is not only protecting consumers but also ensuring that the cultural and traditional facets of French gastronomy will be maintained in the centuries to come.

Bicycle Sharing Systems: Paris and the Vélib'

In recent years the perils of climate change have caused many to push governments to take vital steps to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and one innovation that has been extremely popular, particularly in European countries, is the bike-share system. Countries across the globe have jumped on this environmentally friendly bandwagon, hoping to offer free or affordable public bikes to citizens and tourists alike as an eventual way to diminish traffic congestion, improve parking, and reduce pollution in large cities. While certainly the place that most often comes to mind when thinking of such a program is Amsterdam, famous for its “white bike program,” the notion has spread to many other cities across Europe, including Stockholm, Vienna, Barcelona, Brussels, Zurich, and Copenhagen. Inspired in part by these places and as an attempt to make his own city greener and more bike-friendly, Socialist Mayor Bertrand Delanoë conceived a bike-hire system for Paris, which made its official début on July 15, 2007. The service was dubbed Vélib’, a portmanteau combining the French words “vélo” (bike) and “liberté” (freedom). Accordingly, Vélib’s are available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and with numerous pick up and drop off stations scattered across Paris (see right) they provide a manner to navigate the city of lights in which users can remain above ground and get exercise, all while reducing their carbon footprint. While initially a credit card is required to access the Vélib’s so as to allow the system to charge an automatic €150 penalty if the bike is not returned within twenty-four hours, the first half an hour is completely free, with minimal tariffs for each thirty-minute increment that follows the original departure.

Thus far the program has had enormous success, and according to an article featured in The New York Times, in the first year since its inception “there have been 27.5 million trips in this city of roughly 2.1 million people, many of them for daily commutes,” with an average of 120,000 trips a day. With so much use, it is understandable that the bikes would need regular maintenance, a task that keeps JCDecaux, the company that won the ten-year contract to run the Vélib’ program, quite busy. But following recent stories from BBC and Le Monde highlighting the mounting costs to both the city of Paris and JCDecaux to maintain “the more than 10% of bikes” which have been vandalized, destroyed, or “lost,” the question is being raised as to whether or not the Vélib’ scheme is one that can be sustained financially. This has become somewhat of a hot topic in the blogosphere, attracting input from various sectors of society. One blogger, Henry Samuel, a correspondent for the Telegraph and whose blog I came across during my exploration of the Bernard Kouchner controversy, wrote a post on the subject entitled “Paris theft-plagued Vélib’ bike scheme: a civilizing force?” in which he explores how the free bikes have affected Paris in both negative and positive ways. Another post I discovered, "Reports of Vélib's Demise Greatly Exaggerated" was written by Ben Fried for Streetsblog, a facet of the Livable Streets movement, and investigates a possible motivation for the bad press that surrounds the Vélib’ program, taking a more optimistic stance on the future of this particular bike-share system. Below are the comments I made at each of the blogs, which can also be found by following the links above.


Paris theft-plagued Vélib' bike scheme: a civilising force? (comment)

While there have surely been regrettable incidents of vandalism of vélib’s in Paris (see below left for an example), it is difficult to completely ignore the success the program has had in the city. In a May 2008 study featured on the Vélib website, it was concluded that 94% of users are more or less satisfied with the system, suggesting that while there may be those who violate the principle of the bikes to create YouTube videos, the general population of Paris has taken advantage of the vélib’s in the manner in which they were intended to be used- to facilitate movement around the urban center. What I found to be most interesting about what you wrote is the effect the system is having on popular culture in France, particularly the “internet single” by Florent Nouvel, “The Vélib’eration of Paris.” Certainly if people are spending the time and energy to create complex songs and “clips” to mock the vélib’s and what they have come to represent (e.g. dating locales), the bikes have profoundly infiltrated the public domain and are likely to remain an integral part of Parisian culture. That being said, I find it rather disconcerting that people are doubting the sustainability of this bike-share system, deeming it a “socialist” maneuver when as Steven clearly points out above the program is run by a corporation which, at the end of the day and regardless of resources spent repairing or tracking down bikes in Romania, makes a profit. In fact, in another blog I encountered it was argued that JCDecaux is “ ‘using media sensationalism in order to obtain more money from the city of Paris.’ ” As someone who appears to have great professional insight into the matter, do you consider this to be a likely possibility? I too am “a staunch supporter” of Vélib’, and while the question of it as a civilizing force remains to be answered, I can only hope that the program will continue to exist and inspire.


Reports of Vélib’s Demise Greatly Exaggerated (comment)

Your post in response to the recent BBC article which cast doubt on the sustainability of Paris’s Vélib’ system was very enlightening, and I enjoyed the more positive tone you took in regards to the future of the bike-sharing scheme. As someone who spent considerable time in Paris last year, I had the opportunity to witness firsthand how popular and convenient vélib’s are for both inhabitants and visitors, and reading about the program’s possible downfall was very disheartening. While certainly, as you mention, the bicycle abuse undeniably “exacts a real toll” in terms of financial costs, you present an extremely compelling counter-argument by bringing up the potential “negotiating ploy on the part of JCDecaux.” In presenting concrete information about the agreement the company has with the city of Paris, specifically the financial statistics, you offer a very strong case defending the Vélib’ system while also delineating key reasons as to why JCDecaux would want to emphasize some of the more negative facets of the program. It upsets me that a corporation would exploit the less desirable aspects of such a system as a means to gain an upper hand in contract bargaining, especially taking into consideration the overall success of Vélib’ and the environmental benefits that such bike-share programs could create for major cities across the world. As the BBC article itself touched upon, many cities are taking the example of Paris’s system across the pond, with San Francisco among those interested in setting up similar initiatives. One person who commented on your blog mentioned New York City as an additional place where community bikes have the potential to be extremely useful; do you personally believe that this kind of system could be successful in the United States? Certainly New York already has a public transportation system comparable to the metro system in Paris, but are Americans truly ready to embrace the bike as so many Europeans have done?

The Pécresse Reforms: A Suitable Case for Strikes?

Whereas in France the month of January was memorable for public strikes in reaction to the current economic decline and corresponding governmental policies, February appears to have been the moment for protests by various facets of society on behalf of the education sector. Responding to reforms proposed by the French Minister of Higher Education and Research, Valérie Pécresse, students and teachers specifically have united across the nation in exceptional solidarity to display their general discontent with the government, producing monumental uprisings throughout February in major cities which include Paris, Nantes, Strasbourg, Marseilles, and Bordeaux. According to French newspaper Le Monde, on the 10th of February between 15,000 and 30,000 people took to the streets in Paris (see right), and on the evening of February 19th an additional 200 students staged a sit-in in an amphitheater of the Sorbonne. At this particular juncture, the youth involved took the opportunity to demand the abrogation of the reforms, and called upon the general population to occupy strategic locales and to block major business roads in protest.

Why, many may ask, is there such public outrage occuring over Pécresse’s plans? Although the issue is certainly complex, the predominant rationale for controversy is that she is calling for the modification of key aspects of the education system’s functionality, specifically altering the realm of the academic research community, the enseignants-checheurs, by pushing to allow university presidents to decide how the academic staff divides their time between research and teaching. There are undoubtedly those who view what the minister is proposing as both a positive and a necessary step in ameliorating the current structure, especially as some of the declared goals of the reforms are to cut costs and grant universities more authority. However, members of the academic community from both ends of the political spectrum fear that the measures included in what has come to be known as the “Pécresse reforms” will defy common principles of collegiality and accord unprecedented power to university presidents. They have therefore taken it upon themselves to raise public awareness of the issue in employing the age-old French tradition of strikes. As a recent BBC discussion board proves, the opinions of French citizens on whether or not strikes are an effective method to achieve political goals have become increasingly divided over the years. Some believe that there is “nothing constructive” about strikes and that they tend to “destroy a little more" each time they occur, but the opposing viewpoint maintains that “the strike, if well organized, will make its point” in a democratic society where the united voice of the people "should count." Perhaps those on each side of the argument would agree that France’s infamous tradition of striking is not always a valid or appropriate means of bringing about necessary change. Nonetheless, in the case of the education reforms proposed by Pécresse, the protests are not only warranted but are also proving to be a most influential medium of democracy.

France is world-renowned for its long history of maintaining a strong commitment to the advancement of national education. The French public university system in particular reiterates the government’s dedication to promote the advancement of all its citizens in an egalitarian fashion, and those who desire to go to university in France are easily able to do so once having passed the notorious end of high-school exam, the baccalauréat (or the “bac” as it is known colloquially). But the Pécresse reforms threaten to destroy this inherent equitable structure so as to improve the international competitiveness of French universities, transforming their core to more closely reflect the Anglo-Saxon paradigm. Already the reforms are projected to increase the selectivity of those accepted to universities and to raise tuition costs, revolutionary challenges to this notion of democratic public education. As writer Geneviève Dupont of the website, In Defense of Marxism, proclaims, a major point of contention which will likely have everlasting negative effects is the attempt to change the highly esteemed teacher-training program, “Certificat d’Aptitude au Professorat de l’Enseignement du Second degré” (CAPES). CAPES was created with the purpose of recruiting school teachers and training them for both the private and public sectors of education, and in addition to greatly reducing the funding for this program, the Pécresse reforms will also shorten the two year program to one year, remove the stipulation for one year’s paid work experience, and force CAPES students to share lectures with masters students of their discipline in order to reduce teaching time. Some project that the change to this particular training mechanism will bring an estimated 900 job losses to the higher education sector, and Dupont upholds the conviction that, “the reforms will turn this carefully controlled system into a free market, with some teachers worse qualified than others and therefore more vulnerable to attacks on their job status by the state.” Certainly this is one of the more radical takes on the situation, but its anxious undertones resonate with many of the French who have accordingly called for action to contest Pécresse’s program.

It is important to note that since February 2nd, many universities have declared themselves to be in an indefinite strike against the government reforms, protesting like Dupont that they will “brutally” end the system that has “always enjoyed independence, liberty, and recognition” for a more financially motivated framework. The widespread displeasure among the nation's academic community, touched upon by a recent article in Le Monde, shows compelling evidence that even the presidents and/or vice-presidents of nine universities (Paris-III Censier, Paris-IV Sorbonne, Paris-VIII Saint-Denis, Paris-X Nanterre, Paris-XIII Villetaneuse, Montpellier-III, Besançon, Rouen et Grenoble-III) are against the reforms. Of the 90 public universities in France the majority have not yet openly encouraged the strikes, but the general lack of negative reaction to the situation strongly suggests that even players in the highest echelon of the university system, who, in terms of power, would have the most to gain from Pécresse's initiatives, support the use of protests to apply the necessary political pressure to prevent these changes from becoming a reality. To be sure, those who are protesting are not doing so solely to make their voices heard; they are campaigning to gain the leverage necessary to ensure an eventual victory and force the reversal of the governmental decree.

An issue that has surpassed political cleavages and united those on all sides, the movement has fostered support from a wide variety of political parties which show a steadfast commitment to maintaining the demonstrations to “save research” (see protestors left on Februrary 5th in Toulouse). While the outcome of this situation is not yet definite, what can be seen thus far is the influence the public can have on governmental policy, particularly when the issue has immense backing and the people effectively use the right to strike to relay their message of social unrest to those in charge. Indeed, President Sarkozy has already responded to the issue, calling for a "rapid exploration of alternative approaches to the university reforms" to appease those combating them. Although it is still unclear whether or not the protests will be successful in completely obliterating the Pécresse reforms, for two reasons I hope that those now agitating do triumph: not only would the citizens of France halt the proposed changes, but they would also validate the national tradition of striking.

Bernard Kouchner: Precariously Balancing on the Humanitarian Pedestal

In a time when non-governmental organizations have controversial degrees of influence on states’ foreign policy, it is always interesting to encounter an occasion where the two worlds seem to collide in both a peaceful and a productive way. When in a rather puzzling move President Nicolas Sarkozy appointed Bernard Kouchner (see left, during a recent trip to Africa) as his foreign minister in 2007, it was assumed that this would be an example of such an instance. Kouchner, 69, is most prominently known as the co-founder of the 1999 Nobel prize-winning Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), and has dedicated his life to fighting against humanitarian injustices all over the world. Having had Jewish grandparents who perished in the Nazi death camps during World War II, Kouchner is a firm believer in the Quaker notion of bearing witness, and as such has "an individual engagement" to expose and prevent mass killings “based on personal obstinacy.” Although in general Kouchner is greatly admired for his work as a humanitarian, in recent weeks he has found himself under heavy fire following the release of the book, Le Monde Selon K. Investigative writer Pierre Péan, who, according to UK's The Times, is considered to be “one of the most prolific and successful French investigators of political scandal,” wrote the work in question. The controversial allegations that appear in the Le Monde Selon K, notably the assertion that Kouchner repeatedly blurred the line between public and private activities during his career as a consultant on health matters in Africa, suggest a desire on Péan’s behalf to tarnish the reputation of the world-renowned do-gooder. It has thus provoked divided responses as to whether or not his claims of Kouchner’s alleged immorality should hold weight or be cast off as completely ludicrous. Having explored the blogosphere for posts that tackle the debate surrounding the French foreign minister, I chose to highlight two that I found to provide compelling insight into this issue. The first, titled “Bernard Kouchner prepares for the fight of his life,” was written by Henry Samuel, the French correspondent for the Telegraph. The second, “In defense of Bernard Kouchner,” was written by Andrew Murphy as a guest post for the politics and art compilation blog, Harry's Place. My reactions to both of these posts are included below, and are also available by way of comments posted at each of the respective sites.

“Bernard Kouchner prepares for the fight of his life” (comment)

This is a remarkable post which effectively explores the rationales behind Péan’s denouncement of Kouchner in his book, Le Monde Selon K, and specifically sheds light on the likely possibility that political tensions played a large role in provoking the accusations. While Sarkozy’s appointment of Kouchner as foreign minister in 2007 was certainly a bit of a conundrum considering the political orientations of the men, I was not aware that the rapport between the two was strained, nor was I aware of the high probability that “the Elysée…provided Péan with material” for his book. However, although I understand that Péan and other socialists perceive Kouchner as having abandoned his party when he accepted Sarkozy’s cabinet position, I have to wonder if there are more egotistical reasons that propelled the writer to take such a slanderous and even at times anti-Semitic stance on Kouchner as a person. Perhaps there are additional details of their past interactions to which the public is not privy that would substantiate their current rapport (or lack thereof)?

While Péan certainly did initiate controversy over the exact intentions of the foreign minister, in questioning the nobility of the “white knight” with the intent to “scratch the gold off the icon” it seems that the most prominent accomplishment of his work was proving to Kouchner that despite all of his amazing feats in the humanitarian realm, he still has many foes. In your post you imply that this may one of the most definitive moments in Kouchner’s career; do you personally believe that he will make it out unscathed, or instead will his enemies be triumphant in using this incident to lead to his potential demise? While evidently there are those who believe that he merits the negative publicity, I’m hopeful that the public will not be easily swayed by Péan’s words; after all, despite his extraordinary compassion for humankind, Bernard Kouchner remains a human being who, like the rest of us, is destined to have some flaws.


“In defense of Bernard Kouchner” (comment)

I’m very glad to read that there are those out there who also found Péan’s attack of Bernard Kouchner to be unfounded and lacking serious evidence. Although the investigative journalist has surely raised questions that merit exploration, Kouchner has many accomplishments which in essence contradict that of which is he being accused; after all, why would someone who has dedicated his whole life to exposing and combating human rights violations knowingly throw his reputation away? What I found particularly interesting was your suggestion that had Kouchner not taken a stance on Iraq which was perceived as “pro-American,” it is likely that he would not be facing such allegations today. Even the cover of the book (see right) attempts from the get-go to persuade readers that there is a strong link between Kouchner and President George W. Bush, when he was in actuality against the Iraq war but even more so against the suffering and atrocities that were occurring in the country under Saddam Hussein. As you mentioned, in 2003 when he did not follow “most of the French left into knee-jerk anti-Americanism,” Kouchner was rendered an outcast of the Socialist party, ultimately being expelled from it “when he joined the center-right Sarkozy government." Indeed, there are many around the world that believe Péan’s work to be primarily motivated as a result of his disdain for Kouchner, with rumors that it was the “betrayed” members of the left who provided the author with much of his material. As is evident with his unique stance on Iraq, Kouchner remains an iconoclastic figure exactly because he refuses to automatically conform to the desires of others, regardless of their political nature.

I am also astounded that there are those who see payment for his time as a consultant to states such as Gabon and Congo as unwarranted; certainly Kouchner deserved to be paid for the time and effort he put into ameliorating the health systems, regardless of the whether or not the leaders are considered questionable? Kouchner has been taking politically salient stances on controversial issues since the early 1970s, and as one who consistently promotes the importance in upholding human rights it is, as you precisely put it, “ no shock that Kouchner’s organization would be in those countries.”

Maternity Leave in France: What Is the Motivation?

In recent weeks there has been considerable media attention surrounding the French government and its cabinet members, with one of the latest spotlights shining on Rachida Dati (see right), the justice minister of France under President Nicolas Sarkozy. Dati, 43, is France’s first cabinet member of North African origin, and has been a star of the French press for some time now, initially making waves with the announcement of her unmarried pregnancy, a topic which created further commotion when Miss Dati declined to reveal the identity of the baby’s father. The most recent public scrutiny of the minister resulted from her decision to return to work just five days after giving birth to a baby girl, sparking heated discussions around the globe on the topic of maternity leave in France.

The French maternity leave system is widely acclaimed, particularly as a result of its seeming commitment to uphold and support mothers’ rights after giving birth. While certainly there are drawbacks to having policy as socially progressive as that of France, with cost being the main weakness, in general what the government offers pregnant women seems ideal: working mothers who are expecting a child are entitled to sixteen weeks total of paid leave, six weeks before the estimated delivery date and an additional ten weeks after the birth of the child, with varying stipulations for multiple births and for families with dependent children. There are also laws in place to ensure job protection, allowing mothers to return to their same positions and salaries after their leave comes to an end. And the benefits do not rest uniquely with mothers; a law was recently created which provides working fathers the opportunity to take up to two weeks of paid time off, regardless of their employment contract, within the first four months of a child’s birth. With maternity and paternity leave policies such as these, the temptation for working couples to start families seems difficult to resist. But as previously indicated, allocating parents the aforementioned benefits is not without its expenses, and it was noted that in 2006 France spent fifteen percent of its annual budget towards family and child services. So what, in effect, is driving the state to offer such generous compensations to expecting parents?

National Public Radio (NPR) recently aired a program about the controversy Rachida Dati’s fleeting maternity leave caused in France, highlighting the outrage from feminists in the country who perceive her refusal to take the full sixteen weeks of leave to which she is entitled as a move that “could be used to undermine hard-won and generous maternity rights.” The fury resulting from this situation brings to light the question as to whether or not the rationale behind France's maternity leave is directly related to the women’s rights movement. Undeniably, the current French policy demonstrates a commitment to mothers’ rights while simultaneously supporting the continued existence of women in the workplace, a notion that maintains the feminist goal of securing rights and opportunities for women that are equal to those of men. The debate over Dati’s actions and if she is indeed a traitor to her sex or Wonder Woman is, in this inquiry, a moot point; the curious angle this discussion brings up is if women’s rights were a key, motivating factor behind the French maternity leave laws. A very likely possibility is that women’s rights had little to do with the initial reasons for creating such a system in France, and instead the real goal was to promote a higher national birth rate. In recent years especially, birth rates in European countries have lowered steadily, causing the working-age population to shrink and creating a worrisome trend for heads of state in the European Union. Although the threat of a European extinction seems extremely dubious, the cause for worry remains financially driven, and as was stated in a BBC News article “demographic decline causes anxiety because it is thought to go hand in hand with economic decline” as “with fewer, younger workers to pay the health and pension bills of an elderly population, states face an unprecedented fiscal burden.” But while in general birth and fertility rates in Europe are consistently decreasing, according to Agence France-Presse (AFP), the birth rate in France has continued to climb in such a manner that the country is now holding the position of “Europe’s fertility champion.” This emergence as the number one baby-producing European country is a development that many believe has to do with the incentives the government offers to those who have children.

In addition to its benefits in regards to maternity and paternity leave, France also affords universal, full-time preschool starting at age three, stipends for in-home nannies, subsidized daycare before age three, monthly childcare allowances, and tax and transportation breaks for families with children. With enticements such as these, it is easy to understand how the state has been successful with its pro-natal policies while concurrently encouraging women to resume working, a vital step in maintaining the financial livelihood of a country. As the global economy takes a turn for the worse, however, and as President Sarkozy (see left) looks to cut costs à la américaine, it is questionable as to how much longer France will be able to sustain such programs. To be sure, with an annual cost of $102 million dollars and the president’s urging for a shorter maternity leave, the system will most likely be subject to reforms in the near future.

Le Début: Gathering and Evaluating Resources

While it seems that as a result of globalization and increasing technological advances cultural differences are being rendered more negligible everyday, there are without a doubt some qualities that remain unique to specific cultures. France, a country known for fine wine, food, and art, is also a country that is known for a quality of life that provides its citizens with an exceptional joie de vivre that is unparalleled by other countries. This blog is intended to be a way to explore how the commitment to continue this way of life has affected not only the citizens of France but also the functionality of the French political body. As such, I’ve compiled a linkroll of relevant websites to support and enhance my blog, using search engines such as Metacrawler, WorldNews Network, and Google to locate pertinent news sources, organizations, blogs, and research sites. As a way to facilitate sifting through the plethora of information available on the Internet, I used the criteria set forth by The Webby Awards and the IMSA criteria. The guidelines delineated by the aforementioned institutions provided insight as to what constitutes an excellent source on the web, evaluating work based on content, visual design, functionality, authority, structure and navigation, interactivity, and overall experience. Some of the assets I subsequently added include France-Amérique, a semi-monthly French news magazine (see above), France-Diplomatie, a site pertaining to the role of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the world, and Persée, a database of French journals dealing with the humanities and social sciences. With the maturation of my blog, I will continue to update my linkroll with appropriate and interesting sources; I’m truly looking forward to using "Je Ne Sais Quoi" as a way not only to further delve into the evolving French political and cultural scene, but also as a way to gain new perspectives on the subject matter from fellow members of the blogosphere.