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."
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto says he knows how to fix the problems facing Indonesia. Yet his economic mismanagement and authoritarian tendencies are steering the nation toward a familiar mix of currency instability and political chaos. The world’s fourth-most populous nation risks reversing the hard-won democratic and business reforms that came after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. At that time, the rupiah collapsed and the political upheaval that followed forced former president Haji Mohamed Suharto from power. Prabowo’s administration is ignoring similar warning signs. That disconnect was apparent in a national address on Wednesday, when Prabowo projected the swagger that has
RSS