Boycotting is unnecessary

Recent weeks have brought an increased tension to relations between certain European countries and our own nation. However, the nasty political name-calling wars and benign protests have turned into mutual threats of economic boycotts among the respective populations. Some in Germany and France have stopped buying American products, and a number of Americans have returned the favor.\nHowever, I don't quite understand the justification for such a drastic measure. And although these boycotts have been small and unorganized, the threat still looms. But boycotting another nation's products is no simple gesture of disagreement. It's an intentional attempt to hurt the other country's economy in order to influence their public policy and should be reserved for countries that pose a more serious threat. The only way in which our boycott would be justified is if it is an effort to end theirs, and I get the distinct impression that this is not the case.\nThe individual refusal to buy American products in France only succeeds in insulting us; not in hurting us financially. They just don't have the economic clout to push us around. The CIA Fact Book shows that Germany only represents 4.1 percent of our exports and France is even less. On the other hand we buy almost 9 percent of France's exports and 10.6 percent of Germany's.\nBut the point of these facts is not to encourage Americans to shun French products. Despite our economic advantage, refusing to buy all things French would hurt Americans a great deal. According to the business community and the French government, boycotting French firms in the U.S. would hurt companies that employ some 500,000 American workers (Agence France Presse).\nThis same idea applies to the American owned businesses in France and Germany. Fred Irwin, head of the Frankfurt-based American Chamber of Commerce, was quoted in the Associated Press as saying, "The Coca-Cola drunk in Germany is manufactured in Germany with German employees and they only hurt themselves." Ricarda Ruecker, spokeswoman for McDonald's in Germany expressed a similar response in the AP: "The name doesn't really tell you anything," Ruecker said. "A boycott in Germany would only damage the economy here (in Germany)."\nIt will be American businesses that take a hit if we boycott. Most French restaurants have little or no affiliation with the country except for the name and style of food. They are American owned and employ Americans. Yet some of these restaurants in New York have seen business drop and say that anti-Gallic sentiment is to blame. And when was the last time you saw a 'cheese-eating surrender monkey' working at a Red Roof Inn or a Mobil 6? After all, these are both French companies. Meanwhile businesses like French's mustard are releasing pleas to the public saying that they have nothing to do with France. Their name just comes from the last name of their founder.\nThreatening major western allies (and France) with economic repercussions is the wrong way to gain support for U.S. decisions. French resent that Americans are able to bully other nations with their powerful economy. This is one of the reasons they've been such a pain lately. It's also partly responsible for the creation of the European Union: To counterbalance U.S. economic dominance.\nThis latest cross-Atlantic spat has given us opportunity to take a moral high ground in the war of the words. Instead, with every undignified and shameful act the French and Germans pull, Americans feel that we must respond in a similar fashion. I personally have never cared much for the French, but boycotting can only make things worse for all countries involved. We should stick to what we do best and most enjoy: Name-calling.