By warning that France could use nuclear weapons against state sponsors of terrorism, President Jacques Chirac is signaling that the US does not have a monopoly on nuclear deterrence, analysts said.
French experts also agreed that Chirac's speech on Thursday did not mark a fundamental policy shift but rather a refinement of current nuclear doctrine.
Chirac's unexpected warning to "rogue" states was intended to show that "one does not leave the monopoly of deterrence to the Americans," argued Dominique Moisi of the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI).
"It was a Gaullist-inspired speech aimed at giving renewed legitimacy to France's deterrent arsenal, within the context of Europe," he said.
Jean-Pierre Maulny, deputy director of the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (IRIS), also saw the message as an assertion of nuclear independence from the US, but one aimed at France's European partners.
"Jacques Chirac wants to give credibility to the European Union's strategic autonomy," Maulny said -- despite the fact that, according to one military expert, most European nations wish to remain under the US nuclear umbrella.
France and Britain are the only EU nations to have nuclear arsenals.
Asked whether Britain would consider using nuclear arms against state sponsors of terrorism, the British Foreign Office said its policy was not to give advance warning of its intended response to specific threats.
Meanwhile, Maulny questioned the strategic wisdom of Chirac's decision to clarify French strategic doctrine in the face of emerging threats.
"Is this necessary? That's not certain. Because the doctrine of deterrence is all the more effective when it stays vague," Maulny said.
"Under [late presidents] De Gaulle and Mitterrand, the doctrine was simply to say: `I have nuclear weapons and I will not hesitate to use them,'" he said.
In a wide-ranging policy speech, Chirac warned on Thursday that any state that sponsored a terrorist attack -- or was considering using weapons of mass destruction -- against France, would be laying itself open to a nuclear attack.
He also extended the definition of the "vital interests" that France would defend with nuclear weapons to include its allies and "strategic supplies" -- widely taken to mean oil -- and condemned "the temptation by certain countries to obtain nuclear capabilities in contravention of treaties".
Although no specific country was mentioned, Chirac was understood to be referring to Iran. The West is currently engaged in an escalating dispute with Tehran over its nuclear program and is seeking to win guarantees from Iran that it is not developing nuclear arms.
"We are thinking quite clearly of Iran," Moisi said of that reference by Chirac.
Chirac also indicated in Thursday's speech that the previous Cold War strategy of threatening enemies with massive and widespread destruction had been changed to a doctrine permitting a graduated and limited nuclear response.
He said that France had configured its nuclear arsenal -- widely believed to number between 200 and 300 warheads -- to be able to respond "flexibly and reactively" to any threat, by reducing the number of heads on certain missiles.
Such a move would enable it to conduct strikes on specific targets and limit the zone of destruction.
Both Maulny and Francois Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research, warned against drawing too swift a parallel with the US' so-called "mini-nukes," developed to destroy installations such as deep underground bunkers.
According to Maulny, Chirac's statements mark a clarification but not a fundamental change to the nuclear doctrine he outlined in 2001.
"Chirac is saying: France is adapting, We are applying the same strategic thought but to deeply different circumstances," Moisi said.
Heisbourg saw a similarity with British strategic policy "in terms of the ability to shoot missiles that are not equipped with their full payload."
"That gives the possibility of extending the range but also of carrying out something other than a massive strategic strike," he said.
But above all, Heisbourg argued that Chirac, who is nearing the end of his term in office, had delivered a "heritage speech, a nuclear testament, in relation to which future presidential candidates are called upon to position themselves."
Taiwan has lost Trump. Or so a former State Department official and lobbyist would have us believe. Writing for online outlet Domino Theory in an article titled “How Taiwan lost Trump,” Christian Whiton provides a litany of reasons that the William Lai (賴清德) and Donald Trump administrations have supposedly fallen out — and it’s all Lai’s fault. Although many of Whiton’s claims are misleading or ill-informed, the article is helpfully, if unintentionally, revealing of a key aspect of the MAGA worldview. Whiton complains of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s “inability to understand and relate to the New Right in America.” Many
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
Taiwan is to hold a referendum on Saturday next week to decide whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant, which was shut down in May after 40 years of service, should restart operations for as long as another 20 years. The referendum was proposed by the opposition Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and passed in the legislature with support from the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Its question reads: “Do you agree that the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should continue operations upon approval by the competent authority and confirmation that there are no safety concerns?” Supporters of the proposal argue that nuclear power
RSS