By John Q. Hosedrinker 
France’s foreign minister has requested that U.S. Ambassador Charles Kushner be denied direct access to French government officials following his failure to attend a meeting concerning U.S. State Department comments on the death of a far-right activist. The U.S. embassy had amplified a statement suggesting left-wing militants were responsible for the beating death, a claim France rejected as an instrumentalization of the tragedy for political ends. This diplomatic friction arises from differing perspectives on political violence and its implications ahead of upcoming elections.
Read the original article here
France is reportedly taking steps to restrict direct government access for US Ambassador Charles Kushner, a move that seems to stem from a complex web of past controversies and a desire by French officials to maintain a certain standard of conduct in their interactions with foreign representatives. It appears the core of this issue lies in Kushner’s history, particularly his conviction as a felon. This past legal entanglement is clearly a significant factor influencing the French government’s decision regarding his engagement.
The conviction itself is quite a story, involving the hiring of a prostitute to entrap his brother-in-law, the subsequent filming of the encounter, and an alleged attempt to blackmail his own sister with the recording. This particular detail, that the target of the alleged blackmail was his own sister, adds a layer of personal betrayal that understandably raises serious questions about his judgment and character. Many would agree that such actions, even after a pardon, cast a long shadow, and it’s not surprising that foreign governments might be hesitant to grant unfettered access to someone with such a documented history.
The sentiment expressed is that individuals with such backgrounds shouldn’t hold positions of trust, especially ambassadorial roles that require a high degree of integrity and respect. The comparison is drawn to how such a person should perhaps not be in any government position at all, with a strong feeling that he should be serving time in prison rather than representing a nation abroad. The idea is that if France is taking this stance, perhaps other nations, including the United States, should have taken similar measures internally.
There’s a sense that Europe, and France in particular, is demonstrating a greater degree of discernment and common sense than what is perceived to be present in the current US administration. The notion that France is unwilling to have a “corrupt lackey” involved with their government is met with approval. The hope is that such actions by allies can serve as a signal of how out of favor the US has become on the global stage due to perceived ethical lapses and a lack of trustworthiness, especially after incidents like leaking sensitive war plans.
The appointment of Charles Kushner as an ambassador is itself a point of contention for many. He is widely seen as a real estate developer whose expertise lies in that field, not in diplomacy. The idea of someone with his background holding such a significant international role is viewed as frankly baffling and an embarrassment to the country he represents. His familial connection, being the father of Jared Kushner, the former President’s son-in-law, is seen by some as the primary reason for his appointment, highlighting a perceived pattern of nepotism within the administration.
The fact that Charles Kushner was pardoned by the former President adds another layer to the complexity, suggesting a willingness to overlook or forgive significant past transgressions for those within a certain circle. This pardon is viewed by some as a testament to the former president’s tendency to surround himself with individuals who have questionable pasts, drawing parallels to other controversial figures. The prosecution of Charles Kushner by Chris Christie, who himself was a significant figure in the political landscape, is also recalled as a notable event.
The prospect of France barring him from direct government access is seen as a positive step, a decision that reflects a refreshing adherence to ethical standards. It’s viewed as a sign that France is unwilling to associate with someone described as a “sleaze,” a “morally bankrupt felon,” and a “bottom feeding deplorable” who should, in the opinion of many, still be incarcerated. The hope is that this action will serve as a signal to the US, and perhaps encourage other nations to consider similar measures regarding their own representatives if they are deemed to be acting as “bullies and bag men.”
There’s a sentiment that France is essentially doing “the Lord’s work” by taking this stance. The idea that an ambassador might not even be physically present for their duties, and therefore wouldn’t be able to attend meetings, is also brought up as a perplexing situation. The notion of being “summoned a second time to explain why he didn’t get it the first time” regarding diplomatic protocols further illustrates the perceived lack of understanding or respect for the role. The possibility that he might not grasp the concept of “diplomacy” or “persona non grata” without simple explanations is also a recurring theme.
The broader implication of France’s move is that it underscores a decline in the United States’ international standing. The belief is that allies no longer trust the US, and actions like this serve to highlight that erosion of confidence. The underlying hope is that the US can eventually regain control from what some perceive as “oligarchs” and a “corrupt” system, and perhaps learn from its mistakes, particularly regarding the unchecked power of billionaires and unrestricted capitalism. The ultimate wish is that this situation serves as a stark warning about the dangers of complacency and the importance of ethical governance.