La Fin D'un Reve: French Newspaper Coverage of 9/11

In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, the reaction of the French media was one of passionate empathy. The September 12th headline of Le Monde reads simply “Nous sommes tous Américains” (We are all Americans).1 Yet as early as September 13th, Le Monde began broaching criticism of American policy and scrutinizing the American response. Close readings of this rapidly changing stance reveal French resistance to a dominant US narrative of rigid moral dichotomy. On the whole, the opinions that appeared in Le Monde in the week following 9/11 trace a trajectory from cautious optimism to outright disapproval.

One of the earliest Le Monde articles on the subject of September 11th was entitled “La fin d’un rêve” (The end of a dream) and appeared on September 13th, 2001. In this short piece, the author offers sympathy to the United States and recognizes the terrible nature of the attacks, calling them “a festival of barbarism.” Yet in contrast with the newspaper’s September 12th statement of unequivocal sympathy, this piece, published only a day later, already contains implicit and explicit criticism of US policy. The article begins with the simple statement “It was the end of a utopian dream.” This plain expression conveys not only the terror and trauma associated with 9/11 but also puts forth a bold critique of the American worldview.

The notion of a dream coming to an end implies that prior to 9/11, Americans lived in a utopian non-reality and were “woken up” by the attacks. Thus, the United States is cast as an unrealistically isolated nation, divorced and distant from political reality. In addition, it implies the existence of dangerous isolationist tendencies even before the attacks occurred.

The author goes on to argue that United States must recognize its new role in the world, not as a “lone actor” but as part of a complex and tumultuous international scene. This criticism is constructive in nature and suggests that the French perceive potential for dramatic change. The reference to the United States as a “lone actor” reveals the germination of a French counter-narrative that is based on international cooperation. According to Le Monde, if the United States recognizes and repudiates this false role of unilateral actor, then the nation can contribute to a new era of cooperation.

The author places the blame for this erroneous view firmly on the shoulders of President Bush, arguing that it was his aim to “protect the United States from the international scene.” The author’s ultimate conclusion is that “isolationism is never an option for America.”2 This further reinforces a counter-narrative of cooperation by suggesting that isolationism is not a viable political policy but a deliberate and reckless spurning of reality. This critical stance only two days after the attacks demonstrates a presupposition of US policy failure but also offers a hopeful tone with respect to the potential for positive change.

Combined with this narrative of sleeping and waking is a French counter-narrative of national and world unity that contrasts sharply with the US reaction. A second article appears on September 13 in Le Monde that effectively catalogues the worldwide outpouring of sympathy and expression of solidarity. The headline claims boldly that “the condemnations are officially unanimous” and then describes the seemingly universal compassion expressed by Japan, China, Canada, Algeria and other nations.3

Another piece, published on September 14, 2001, and written by Bacque Raphaelle and Robert Diard Pascale, recognizes the profound sympathetic reaction within the US, citing the day of mourning and the ubiquitous presence of American flags. This initial emphasis on world and national unity implies faith in its potential to be channeled into constructive change. In the counter-narrative of world unity, international support is unanimous and the events of 9/11 have the capacity to spark coalition and collaboration. Early in the week, this viewpoint is offered with the hope that it will help the United States and the world move in a new direction of multilateralism.

The French counter-narrative is also founded on faith in introspection; unity, the writers of Le Monde suggest, provides the opportunity for a profound reevaluation of the United States worldview. On September 15th, an article entitled “Refuser le manichèisme” warns gravely that “The natural and spontaneous solidarity manifested, notably in Europe, with the American people and its leaders does not justify simplistic conclusions.”4 This talk of “simplistic conclusions” is a direct attack on American unilateralism and dualism, the “us versus them,” “Good versus Evil” rhetoric that is intertwined with a unilateralist worldview. The author warns against the dangers of racial and religious stigma of Arabs and Muslims respectively, cautioning the world and the United States not to “diabolize” the Muslim population.

The use of this word “diabolize” is a telling reference to what the author views as problematic American rhetoric. “The necessary fight against international terrorism” the author states emphatically, “is not a monumental battle between Good and Evil, contrary to what George W. Bush has declared.”5 The construction of terrorism as a moral and religious war is seen to be a dangerous dilution of global conflict. In the context of world affairs, Bush’s brand of moral dualism is viewed by the French press as a toxic oversimplification that has the potential poison international relations. In the eyes of the French, it is the introduction of careful contemplation and introspection that fuels global change and succumbing to moral dualism and categorization is an unproductive fantasy; the counter-narrative thus rejects dichotomy in favor of nuance, recognizing the inherent complexity of international political relations.