But then French posturing against the United States should never be taken very seriously. According to French Foreign Minister, Hubert Vedrine, democracy could not be imposed on countries. "The bottom line is that in Western countries the thinking is that democracy is like religion and that all you have to do is convert people," he explained. The French Embassy issued a statement declaring democracy to be "not a matter which allows sweeping generalizations….The specifics of each case should be taken into consideration." Banal platitudes like these invariably pass for profundities in the Qui d'Orsay. In insightfulness, they are on a par with fulminations about America as the "hyperpower" or the curse of the Big Mac. None the less the hideous harridan of Foggy Bottom made a show of defensiveness: "We did not come to Warsaw to impose democracy – for that is a contradiction in terms. Dictators impose; democracy is chosen….Nor is democracy a religion but it is a faith that has lifted the lives of people in every corner of the globe."

That's the story for the children, eagerly lapped up by the media. Democracy versus Realpolitik; New World versus Old World; idealism versus cynicism. In reality, of course, French and American foreign policies are indistinguishable. France is America's junior partner in the establishment of a US-dominated Western empire. In fact, France, like some neurotic little pup, is even more eager than the United States to intervene everywhere in the world. For years it has been hankering to return to Africa. France has been an eager participant in the destruction of Yugoslavia. Just last week, it joined the United States in banning the Yugoslavia's UN envoy from taking part in the UN Security Council debate on the Balkans. France rails at Russia's use of force in Chechnya. France condemns Peru's Fujimori even more vehemently than Washington. And so on.

Oddly enough, the fraudulence of this supposed clash among the Western powers was shown up by one of Washington's most ardent champions of empire. Writing in the Washington Post, Robert Kagan poured scorn on the conference: "The democratic world has become a bit flaccid and is in a more forgiving mood than it was a decade ago….[P]romoting democracy where it doesn't exist? Setting off a Fourth Wave? That's not part of the agenda….Attendees include such notable democracies as Algeria, Egypt, Kenya and Yemen." Exactly. The United States is no more in the business of promoting democracy than France is. The whole point of a conference like this is to create not a community of democracies, but a community of client-states. Those who attend become eligible for American largesse: A World Bank loan; an IMF credit facility; a grant from the NED or the USIA; removal of the odd tariff; help with securing investment; and if all else fails a Presidential visit. The French do not have as much money to throw around as the Americans. So they get a little peeved. But, thanks to the European Union, they will soon be in the big-time patronage business.

If the French did not exist, they would have to be invented. There is nothing US policymakers – not to mention the denizens of Washington's little magazines and think tanks – love to talk about more than the promotion of democracy. In reality, of course, US foreign policy has never – not even under Woodrow Wilson – been about making the world safe for democracy. Whenever national interests dictated, the United States did not hesitate to align itself with the most unsavory dictators around. To be sure, Washington often discarded them once they outlived their usefulness. Noriega, Somoza, Duvalier, Marcos, Diem, Suharto, Muhammad Shah Pahlavi, were all victims of a change of priorities in Washington. Such ruthless abandonment of former close pals is what "neo-conservatives" often mean by "promoting democracy." Championing "democracy" – it used to be "human rights" – enables liberals to justify bombing, starvation, overthrowing legitimate governments. Republicans have no problems with the policy. They just hate the talk of "democracy" to justify it. They much prefer the soothing sounds of pennies accumulating in the bank. Republicans want to bomb a country to make it safe for US investment. Democrats want to bomb it to make it safe for American-style democracy. The policy is the same. The consequences are the same.

This is why Republicans have always ended up supporting Democratic interventions. It is why elections are so tedious. To the individual actors involved, who wields power in Washington is all-important. US elections are endlessly fascinating to the tiny coterie of journalist, lobbyists and politicians, but of no interest whatsoever to the rest of us. Every four years, the candidates hurl abuse at one another. Whoever wins ends up pursuing the same policy as the one who lost would have done. The Bush Administration sponsored the breakup of Yugoslavia, recognizing the Moslem-dominated state of Bosnia. Candidate Clinton attacked Bush for being insufficiently pro-Moslem. Candidate George W. attacks the Clinton Administration for not waging war against the Serbs ferociously enough. Candidate Clinton attacked George W.'s father for coddling the "Butchers of Beijing." Today, George W. attacks Clinton for not caring enough about human rights in China and not doing enough for Taiwan.

Yet there is something sinister going on in this election. Gore and his acolytes in the media are so desperate to win that they are willing to silence all debate on the desirability of the US Empire. Recently, Al Gore attacks George W. for allegedly being unwilling to "intervene to relieve even the brutal repression of ethnic cleansing and genocide." – this despite Bush's shameful support for Clinton's bombing caper last year. The New Republic, now little more than a Gore campaign handout, has come up with an ingenious way of attacking George W. Bush. Though there is not the slightest evidence for it, the magazine is trying to show that Bush – or the people around him – are opponents of American interventionism. Moreover, they are motivated by hatred of America and the conviction that America is in decline. It is difficult to convey fully the scurrilous nature of Lawrence Kaplan's recent New Republic article. How contemptible this magazine has become was apparent from the heading that went with the piece. "Guess who hates America?," it asked. Answer: "Conservatives." To suggest that if you do not support US Government policy you "hate America" is about the lowest one can descend to. Lawrence Kaplan's is a style of writing that we have become familiar with from the "neo-conservatives." He sticks suggestive, slanderous labels on people he disagrees with, as if he had thereby demonstrated the erroneous nature of their thinking. In the past, we have seen terms like "Anti-Semitic" and "isolationist" being used like this. Kaplan adds "declinist" and "pessimist" to the repertoire. "Declinism," he explains, is a way of thinking engaged in by "tough-minded foreign policy 'realists', conservatives in the Kissingerian mold who have somehow managed to locate in one of history's most lopsided victories the seeds of an even greater defeat." It is based on hostility "toward the American idea itself." Kaplan offers no evidence to support his sweeping statements. Though it is evident that his argument is little more than tautology. Since he defines the American in a particular and tendentious fashion, Those who disagree with him must, therefore, be hostile to the "American idea." And just who are these terrible "declinists," Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington is one. Then there is Robert D. Kaplan "credited by the media with…persuading President Clinton to delay US intervention in Bosnia. (Texas Governor George W. Bush, too, claims Kaplan at the top of his reading list.)" Now, in the first place there is something repellent about mentioning a distinguished political scientist like Huntington in the same breath as an ignorant fraud like Robert Kaplan. Second, Kaplan has always been an ardent supporter of US intervention in the Balkans.