Today is my day to be controversial.

It is trendy, almost conventional wisdom, amongst many Americans (courtesy of The Gweilo Diaries) at least, that France is the real enemy now Iraq is over. Interesting idea and in some ways correct. France is one of several nations who find the idea of a sole world superpower daunting and a blow to their historical self-image. It must be hard to go from world player to another middle sized power in a century. Yet for historical reasons France has some trappings of punching above its weight, especially as they have nukes and they have a permanent seat at the UN Security Council.

It is usually forgotten that the UN Security Council in 2002 unanimous approved moves against Iraq late last year (resolution 1441). However by early 2003, due to a multitude of factors, there was a real divergence of opinion on what to do with Iraq. Personally I think invading Iraq was the right move - Sadaam had plenty of years to comply and finally his bluff was called. I imagine few Iraqis are pining for a return to those days.

What is important in this discussion is that many did not think it the right thing to do. This included large percentages in many nations in Europe. France then decided to represent the views of its population. They disagreed with the American position. This is called democracy. Within countries there are disagreements on every issue but there is a common underlying set of beliefs that drive the whole country forward and allow for such differences to be tolerated. Likewise nations of the West have a similar theme, being largely democratic and free market based economies all aiming for a peaceful and prosperous world. Often these countries pull together for a common good. A current example is Iran's nuclear situation. Many others exist from the worlds of economics (everyone managed to sit together at the G7 last weekend), politics, diplomacy, sport, culture, business and so on.

France is merely one of many nations that has disagreed with US policy in Iraq. Germany and Russia are two prominent examples that seemed to slip under the radar. Not many Americans boycotting Oktoberfest or vodka.

I think many Americans took the French disagreement with them over Iraq to heart for a few reasons. America's engagement with the world changed after Sep 11; suddenly the ills of the world became a domestic problem as well as an "overseas" one. The world reverted to being us and them, much like the Cold War. This is easier to comprehend than the shades of gray that coloured the world during the immediate post-Cold War period. George W. himself said if you're not with us you are against us.

While much of the world agrees with the ends many disagree with the means. France's problem is it has been seen as the leader of the opposition to America's ends, when the reality is it disagrees with the means. There were mistakes made both by the French and the Americans during the diplomatic negotiations prior to the Iraq invasion. Patriotism demands Americans back their own side. Both sides overplayed their hands but this disagreement was this: France wanted Iraq more time to comply, America felt they had missed their last chance. The two positions were not so different they could not be bridged. But sometimes politicians (and this is a shock) play to their domestic audiences first and worry about the ramifications later. In this case there was too much feeling built up too quickly on both sides and it became a battle of wills rather than ideas.

Don't get me wrong, the French can be arrogant and over-important. It is just there is more in common than is usually acknowledged. It's always fun to pick on the French because they get defensive and lash back. The truth is though we're on the same side. The real test of this is now, with the US acknowledging the need for some kind of blessing from the UN (even if it is post-hoc) and France, Germany and Russia searching for a face saving way of getting back into the main game. There is a very good chance the lessons of earlier this year have been learnt by both sides and some kind of agreement will be reached. Again the disagreement is one of nuance. America wants to remain the civil power in Iraq for some time; France & co. want a quick handover to the new Governing Council. Again not an unbridgeable gap, just a matter of discussion and negotiation to reach an acceptable compromise. Even France accepts the US military will and should remain in Iraq for some time, and probably accept the need to support that effort once the path to a return to Iraqi sovereignty is mapped out. This is what the UN is designed for - making compromises on such international problems.

Much like the self-defeating behaviour of the G-21 developing countries at the WTO last week, France, Germany and Russia need to UN to stay relevant to world affairs. Even Russia is now a middle power at best. The UN gives these countries an undue influence on world affairs. Making it irrelevant to those affairs leaves these countries on the periphery. And it turns out the US needs the UN too (much to many conservatives' chagrin). It's tough being the sole superpower and often time the work need not be done alone. That's what the UN is for - to help legitimately share the burdens of keeping peace in the world.

The end result is let's stop kidding ourselves with Freedom Fries and refusing to drink Evian. Americans don't shop at Republican or Democrat only shops, regardless of their views. The French aren't perfect, but nor is any other country on Earth.