Anti-French Boycott: A Possible Economic Distress?

Boubacar Amadou CISSE

People have always found different ways to voice out their discontent and sanction against any breach of their fundamental principles. A boycott is an example of these methods. From time immemorial, boycotts have been adopted by several communities to inflict economic loss against a person, an organization, or a country.

History of boycott

A boycott can be defined as an act of non-violent, voluntary, and intentional abstention from using, buying or dealing with a person, organization or country as an expression of protest, usually for moral, social, political or environmental reasons. The etymology of the word “boycott” can be traced to the name of real estate agent Charles Boycott that was badly affected by the resistance of Irish local farmers to land rent increases in 1880. Although, boycott, as a concept, have existed before then. Among the Arabs, there was mukâtaa in Arabs the kind that was inflicted on Banu-Hashim during the time of the Prophet. And just like the Greeks had ostrakismos, other nations had different names and methods of boycotting.  

Boycotts have sometimes changed the course of life throughout history. A quick throwback to some major boycotts in the past can help us refresh our mind. The Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955-1956) hugely affected the Americas during the Afro-Americans’ fight for freedom and equality of races; it stemmed from the story of Rosa Parks refusing to give her bus seat to a white passenger. The Afro-American community, representing 75% of Montgomery population at that time, later decided to boycott bus riding.

Another popular event was the Caterpillar boycott in 2003. This event happened when Israel decided to sign an agreement with Caterpillar to provide the Israelite military with bulldozers to destroy Palestinians homes, farmlands and infrastructures. This got from bad to worse when the student activist Rachel Corrie was killed while trying to peacefully prevent the destruction of a Palestinian home. This triggered a public boycott of Caterpillar’s products notably boots, caps, clothes and other products; a Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) campaign was started to disinterest investors from investing in Israel. Undoubtedly, BDS movement is a torn in the flesh of Israeli state today.

The anti-French boycott

It is in light of these that Muslims and Muslims dominated countries around the world have decided to boycott French products and services. The episode started with French President Emmanuel Macron's speech in honour of the teacher who was killed, in relationship with a caricature of the Prophet. The speech triggered reactions against the ongoing Islamophobic policies of Macron’s government. Subsequently, a call for a boycott of the French mall was launched in different Muslim countries.

Despite his interview with Al Jazeera where he tried to explain his word, the French president has been heavily criticized by many of his allies. Numerous articles and publications have been published on many media platforms showing that France has, for a long time, been one of the most Islamophobic states in the world.

Many major Muslim countries have actively started the boycott. It is irrefutable that such boycotts do have economic impacts. In 2019. France exported goods worth $45,8 Billions to predominantly Muslim countries and imported $58 Billion. One of the biggest trade partners of France is Turkey. The middle east country exports goods worth $9.8 Billion to Frances. Renault, one of the most popular French car manufacturing company, has its biggest factory outside France in Turkey.

France is the second larger economy of Europe after Germany. This boycott will undoubtfully affect its economy even though its rank in Europe might probably not be affected. Nevertheless, some sectors will likely be affected more than others. Among the most vulnerable sectors, the automobile, energy, supermarkets, agriculture, defence sectors can be cited.

Moreover, many argue this boycott will not have any significant results on the French economy. Few days after the event, the boss of French Confederation for Employers stressed that his colleagues should “endure the Blackmail” conducted by Muslims. It should not be forgotten that even if France is affected, such economic pressures have two-side effects. It is better to talk about the affected parties and the volume of the effect.

There is an excessive external dependency in the economy of many Muslim countries today, which makes these states very vulnerable. The more impact the boycott has on the French economy, the more people in the employment of French companies in Muslim countries may be affected. For example, it is the Renault factory we mentioned earlier.

Besides, the Americas, Europe and Asia compose a much wider market share of French products that the Middle East, where there is a high concentration of Muslim community. An example is L’Oreal. The French cosmetic brand occupies only 2 per cent of the market share in the Middle East; boycott on such products would be less significant. Another example is the agricultural products and tools. France is Europe’s number agricultural producer; however, according to the French National Association of Food Industry, only 3 per cent of the country’s agricultural products are sent to the Middle East.

For now, no significant economic distress in the French economy can be observed, even though closer research needs to be conducted. Nevertheless, such demonstrations should not be neglected since they trigger larger difficulties with time. Its political effects can already be felt and in the long run, this may draw more complications in the economies of all parties.

To sump, the recent boycott of French products by Muslims communities around the world has been echoed all over the world. For now, although the French economy has not observed any significant economic hardship, even though closer research needs to be conducted. However, this type of demonstration should not be neglected as they trigger greater difficulties over time. Its political implications can be felt already, and in the long run, this could create more complications in the economies of all parties. Therefore, maybe it is time for the needful to be done!