View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The University of Nebraska, Omaha University of Nebraska at Omaha DigitalCommons@UNO Political Science Faculty Publications Department of Political Science 3-2005 Does French Matter? France and Francophonie in the Age of Globalization Jody L. Neathery-Castro University of Nebraska at Omaha, [email protected] Mark O. Rousseau Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/poliscifacpub Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Neathery-Castro, Jody L. and Rousseau, Mark O., "Does French Matter? France and Francophonie in the Age of Globalization" (2005). Political Science Faculty Publications. 19. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/poliscifacpub/19 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Political Science at DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Political Science Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FRENCH REVIEW, Vol. 78, No. 4, March 2005 Printed in U.S.A. Does French Matter? France and Francophonie in the Age of Globalization by Jody Neathery-Castroand Mark 0. Rousseau THE ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE (OIF) increasingly acts as a powerful French-speaking voice in defense of both French cul­ ture and language and in advancing French-speaking nations' multiple global, political and economic interests. While the OIF includes devel­ oped as well as developing1 nations, its policies and financial resources come fromits wealthier and more economically powerful members, fuel­ ing charges that it exists to represent those members' interests. The OIF is unique among international organizations in propounding economic policies based on assumptions different from those espoused by the World Trade Organization (WTO). These differences become most ap­ parent in OIF's strong stance supporting cultural exceptions in interna­ tional trade. This article examines the claims pursued by the OIF, the issue of whose interests are being served, and prospects for its future. The Organisation Internationalede la Francophonie From thefounding of theAgence de Cooperation Culturelle et Technique in 1970 the OIF has evolved its organization and mission over the past thirty years. The Agence intergouvernementale de la Francophonie (AIF) serves as the principal operational arm of the OIF, carrying out the missions devel­ oped at the biennial conferences of heads of state and government of Francophone nations. OIF membership numbers over fiftystates, some of whom have French as the national language and others in which only a small portion speaks French. The 1997 Hanoi Summit created the position of Secretary General of the OIF, held until the 2002 Beirut Summit by Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former Secretary General of the United Nations, and now by Abdou Diouf, former president of Senegal. A clear division of membership exists in the OIF between thewealthy in­ dustrial nations and developing Francophone nations. OIF financing and policy initiatives rest primarily (70%) in the hands of France and Canada. 678 <XåA«hÌXå¸oB¸å¹oXå/+&å«X^XM¹³åºoXåQwabY«Y¹wAåQY]wwÄw³å^åw¹³å¢Ì¬£³Xå pXQåIÚåQXÑX£YQåAQåQXÑX¢xiåA¸w³å=owYå&«AMXåw³å³YYåIÚå³Xå A³åAåAQÑMA¸Yå^åQXÑX¢whåA¹w³åMMY±³å¼oX«³åwMÌQwiåM«w¸wMAå '«AM£qXå w¹XXM¸ÌA´å ^°å ÅXå QXÑX£wiå Ó«Qå A«iÌXå ¢Y«³ÍAã µyÒXÛå¸pB¸å(«BMXåCÊX¤¼´å¹å¥«X´Y«ÑXåBåXMyAåy_ÎXMXåyåd¯yMCå J¼råXMyMAÛåCRåyjÍz´¹yMAÜå $X³å ¸pXå ³¸AQwiå ^å&«XMoå wå w¹X±A¹wAå XMwMå AQå AiÌAhXå A«X¸´åA¸¹X«å+¼åMX«¸AwÚåQX³å¹å£ÓX«gå£w¸wMAåXNwMåAQåAã iÌAhXåXw¸X³åzå¸oXå w¹³X^å3xMXå¹pXåi«Óºoå^å¸oXåMX¸«B峸B¸Xåwå ¸oXå³z׸XX¸påMX¸Ì«Úå&«AMX³åBiÍBhXå¢xMwX³åoAÑXå£BÚXQå Aå £«wã X¹å«Xå£A«¸wMÍA«Úå{å¸oXåÍweMB¹wå^å»pXåA¹wå %Ý å+åAå³wwA«å ÒXzå4Ba«AåÓ«w¸X´å¹oA¹åA¼¸X«³å^åAiÍBiYåAQåM̹ͫXåpAÑXåIYXåA«å MMX«´å_å¤ÌIyMå£zMÞåyå'«AMXå´xMXå¼pXå =ozXå)«XMpå pA´å IXXå Aå A«å _«MYå _ «å M̹̫Aå AQå £w¸yMAå y¹Xi«A¹zå ¸ow´å Ìw¼Úå ¹QAÚå w´å MpAXiXQå IÛå ½pXå «YIw¬¼på _å «XhwBå AiÌBiX³å AQå QwAXM¹´å Ôy½qwå &«AMXå ½pXå XMzMå AQå M̼ͫAå y¸Xi«A¸yå MMÌ««whå wå ¸pXå %Ì«£XAå9wå %9åAQå¸oXåÓ«QåXMÚå^å¾YMpiÚ幫AQXåAQå M̸ΫXå|¹Xi«A¸XRåÍQX«å¸pXå>70åAQå̹yyßyiå%iy³på A´å¹oXåy¿Z±Aã ¸wAå ´å 4A_®Aå å AQå ºpX«³å ¹Xå y¹X±A¸wAå Aã hÌAhX士wXMXåw³åM´XÝå A³³MwB¹YQåÕ¸oåXMwMå£ÕX«åAQå¸XMoã hwMAåXAQX«³ow¦å +å¸ow³å«XhA«Qå A¸åXA³¸å³wMXå?«Qå=A«å++å '«XMoå oA´å IXYå ´Í«§D´´XSå IÛå %j³oå A´å ¾oXå :w¸XQå 4¸A¸X´å XX«jXQå B³å ¸pXå Ö«R´åXBR|jåXMyMå§w¹zMAåARåyy¸A«Úå£ÕX«å ³å ¸pXå A«å £«£X¸å ATå YAQiå AÈå wå ¸oXå =«Qå 6«AQXå /«ã kEàEÀ}å Ás[å ;~½XRå 5ÂCÂXµå MXMXUå «XC jå ¼rXåiIBå XMÛå ÍRX«å¼rXåCXly´å`å¼pXå=70å@pxXåmKCyßC¼y åy´åA«iYÛ士Aw·Qåyå¹pXå M²«D½Xå XRyCå ¼pÎnr¼_Ïå M«y¸yMAå AAÛ´X´å _å y¼³å XMzMå ´MzBå ARå XÒz«Y¼Cå M µX©ÏXMXµå D«Xå ¼å ÕB½zjå .LXå 2«záXÖzlå ARå _¡¬X«å=«Rå!FåMpyX_åXMx¶¸å,³\£på4¸yjy¸áåQX_yX´åjIAzáAÇåA´å ÆXåM´X«åy¸Xi«D¾wå_å¸pXåMÌÉwX³åAQå¢X£X´å_å¹oXåÕ«QåÔowMoåoA³å IXXåI«Ìip¸åDIͼåIÚåºpXåX­Í³å«XTÌM¼yå_åM³¸´å_彫A´£«¹A¸wå CQåM ÍzMA¸yå å4¼zjy¼âåX×ÃZ´wÑXÛåM«y¼yªÍX³åiIAzáA¸zåA³åMÌ«ã ®X¹Ú姫AM¹wMXQåÍQX«å¸pXåAXiw³å^å¸tYå+¹X­B¹wAå -X¹A«Úå&ÌQå ¸pXå ?«Tå"AåDVå¸pXå?«Qå8«ATXå1«iAwßB¹wå*XåMoA«BM¹X«wßX³å¸WAÛ³å iIAåXMÚåB³åCåXØOX³³å ^å ¹«wТoG¹åPA£¹A´å X¬MBå´ËXå å wåÓowMpåMX«MAåHSå_{AMwA峧XMwAå¾X«X´¸³åpAÑXå´X¹åºpXå«ÌX´å¼å ¸pXål«XC¼åQX¼«yX¸å^å¼uXåRXÒX£yiåÕ«Rå4»yiy¸áåA³³X«¸´å¸pA¸åMXM¹yÑXå XMyMå XÙMpCjXå y´å RX´y«DLXå CRå ÔC¼´å ¼åBXåiIAyáAÈåÕ«å ASåÔ«å¸åÍ´½å_«å¹pXåÔXc_åAQå¸oXåyQÌ´º«yCåMÌÉyX³åIͼåf«å¸vXå ¨«åAQåÆXåVXÑX§yjåA¹w³å å #«y¹yM´å 4A´³Xå7CIIåB´´X«¸å½pA¸å¸oXåQwA¸åXzIX¬Aå£A«AQyiå_å lLDyáD¼yåDµåDåy«¯Xµy´½yLXå¼yRXå_åXÔå¼XMpjyX´åARåA«X¸å_«MX´å 680 FRENCH REVIEW 78.4 functions as a deliberate ideology designed to undermine the legitimate social functions of the state to the benefit of private corporate profits. Thus deregulation results not so much from any technical necessityof an international economy, but from deliberate political choices resulting from the victories of capital over labor. Our analysis includes a critical assessment of globalization, considering its social and economic conse­ quences. Increasingly, populations in Europe and the United States evi­ dence awareness of the social impacts of the global trading regime, apparent in the increased frequency and size of public protests at inter­ national meetings of the World Trade Organization, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. While French corporations benefit from the international export of goods, and France boasts the world's fourth largest economy (U.S. Bureau of the Census 831), it is also home to some of globalization's most vocifer­ ous and thoughtful critics. Chief among these is recently-deceased sociol­ ogist and social activist Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu forcefully asserted that the global economy and the institutions represented by WTO have little to do with market forces and universal practices, but result from the U.S. imposing its own economic model on the rest of the world as a universal experience. As a result, the U.S. reaps important competitive advan­ tages-financial, economic, political, military and linguistic. English has become the universal language of internationaleconomy and society. In a similar fashion, Meunier analyzes what she calls the "French ex­ ception," noting that France is the leading international critic of global­ ization (2000). She suggests that many French intellectual and cultural elites remain inhospitable to the neoliberal economic agenda because WTO practices threaten the historic role of the central state in France and infringe on domestic policies like environmental regulation, labor rights and food inspection. Meunier suggests that Francophonie becomes a vehicle for promoting French and slowing the onslaught of English. Continuing concern over the standing of French in Quebec prompted the government to convene a special Commission on the Situation and Future of the French Language in Quebec. In its report Le Fran�ais, une langue pour tout le monde (2001), the Commission considers the relative competitive stance of English and French in the global economy and the role the OIF plays in advancing the economic, political and cultural inter­ ests of Francophone nations. It states that economic advantages accrue to the United States and other Anglophone nations when English serves as the sole language of the market. Non-Anglophone nations face added costs for English language training, monies that Anglophone nations can invest directly in information technologies, research, and scientific de­ velopment. The Commission advocates that all four major New World languages in the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) be recognized under a legal statute guaranteeing official status for each (Spanish, Portuguese, French and English). It likewise endorses the posi- This content downloaded from 137.48.5.79 on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:49:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms DOES FRENCH MATIER? 681 tion taken by the OIF at the 1999 Moncton Francophone Summit that all member states of WTO have the right to develop their own linguistic and cultural policies, including state subsidies for cultural products.