WASHINGTON: Months of bitter wrangling over Iraq have fundamentally altered the Bush administration’s view of France, convincing it, officials say, that the longtime ally is a competitor in world affairs and a threat to the harmony of US relations with Europe.

Paris appears to be “actively working to undermine the transatlantic link,” said one senior US official.

As France’s push to block a US-sponsored resolution on Iraq at the UN Security Council appears close to succeeding, US officials are warning the French that their efforts could hurt themselves — to begin with, by limiting their role in the lucrative post-war rebuilding of Iraq.

The new US attitude, reflected in increasingly sharp public language from Washington, marks a striking shift from just after Sept 11, 2001, when French newspapers declared the nation’s sympathy for a suffering America. US officials say they feel betrayed by France’s role not only in opposing the use of force against Saddam Hussein but also in organizing wider opposition.

US officials and experts say American and French interests are so closely intertwined that any attempt at retribution could end up hurting the United States as much — or more — than France. Yet many experts believe that the attitude of the administration and Congress has become so hostile to Paris that they are likely to seek reprisals that could damage the joint effort against terrorism or undermine the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The evolving US approach may be best reflected, some say, in the attitude of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

Long France’s favourite Bush administration official because of his internationalist outlook, Powell was convinced for most of last fall that France would ultimately not stand in the way of a US military effort to disarm Iraq. But his attitude began to change on Jan 20, when he felt ambushed at a United Nations meeting by the strong opposition to US plans from French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, according to US officials.

According to one ranking diplomat in Washington, De Villepin sought to patch up relations in a one-on-one meeting in Powell’s New York suite on March 6. De Villepin began the meeting by saying he hoped that the fight in the United Nations would not harm the personal relations between the two men, or the relationships of their countries. Powell responded with an angry vulgarity, the diplomat said.

A senior US official denied that Powell had used off-colour language. He said Powell had told De Villepin the two countries would remain allies, yet “let’s be honest; what happens here will affect the relationship.”

A State Department official, requesting anonymity, said Powell returned from that meeting “absolutely furious.” Of the French government, a frustrated Powell reportedly said: “There is no one there to talk to.”

The administration’s irritation has been reflected in statements that question whether France really wants to disarm Iraq or simply stand in the way of the United States.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said last week that France’s stand made it less likely that Baghdad can be disarmed peacefully. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer pointed out that France shot down Britain’s latest proposal to assign final tests for Iraqi disarmament even before Baghdad rejected the idea.

“If that isn’t an unreasonable veto, what is?” he asked.

Jean-David Levitte, the French ambassador to Washington, said he believes the current rancour is only temporary.

“What’s going on right now is a kind of fever,” he said. “It will calm down after these difficult days, and we’ll be friends again, and work together. We have no other options.”

Yet experts said the significance of the divisions should not be underestimated.

Simon Serfaty, director of the Europe programme at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he believed US-French relations are now in worse shape than they have been in 50 years — even worse than in the 1960s, when US frictions with French leader Charles de Gaulle ran strong.

“It is not just that the French have objected to US policies, it is that they’ve been proactive: They’ve put together a coalition that stands in the way of US preferences on an existential issue,” Serfaty said.

The United States and France currently collaborate on a variety of important issues.

The French are perhaps the most important foreign contributor to the US effort against terrorism and have unmatched information on militants. They provided information that led to the arrest of the terrorist who tried to blow up Los Angeles International Airport in December 1999.

The United States and France also have hundreds of billions of dollars of direct investment in each other’s countries.

The French are the largest contributor of troops to UN peacekeeping efforts and are working with US forces in Afghanistan. If the United States seeks to shift some of the burden of rebuilding Iraq after a war to the European Union, France would be the first obvious candidate to contribute troops.

Jeremy Shapiro, of the Brookings Institution’s Center on the United States and France, said the United States could penalize France by preventing the country from collecting on about $5 billion it is owed by Baghdad.

France will be “genuinely disadvantaged,” he said, if it is not present in Iraq immediately after any war, when contracts for oil development work are let.

Yet if the United States invited the United Nations to help run Iraq after a war, the French could gain a foothold in redevelopment, he said.

Judging from its recent record, the Bush administration may retaliate against Paris, analysts said. White House relations with Berlin have continued to be cold since Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder campaigned against the idea of US military action in Iraq during his re-election effort last fall.

Charles Kupchan, a former National Security Council official, predicted that the rift would mark a lasting division between the United States and Europe, and would “dramatically accelerate” the weakening of NATO that is already underway.

“The break that is taking place is probably irreversible, because it’s on first-order principles of war and peace,” he said. “It would probably be less consequential if it were just France alone. But it’s France and Germany and Russia, and most of the European public.”—Dawn/The LAT-WP News Service (c) The Washington Post.