A year ago, when Nicolas Sarkozy was campaigning for the French presidency, he promised a “rupture” with the past. So far, few French can see the sort of rupture that Sarkozy promised.
But they are wrong to think that nothing has changed in the first year of his presidency. Sarkozy has, in fact, brought about a rupture, albeit in an unexpected area — the foreign policy consensus that has prevailed since the days of Charles de Gaulle.
Of course, it is impossible at this early stage to evaluate with any degree of precision the long term strategic repercussions of Sarkozy’s apparent decision to return France to NATO’s integrated military command and strengthen the French military commitment to NATO’s out-of-theater engagement — its first ever — in Afghanistan. But the implication of these decisions is clear — France under Sarkozy is now back at the heart of the Atlantic Alliance.
Although this may seem mundane outside France, Sarkozy’s foreign policy revolution has incited fierce opposition at home. Indeed, all the nation’s left-wing parties have denounced Sarkozy’s rupture with the Fifth Republic’s military and diplomatic heritage.
Of course, the left’s real quarrel with Sarkozy’s policy has at its root his conception of France’s relationship with the US. Wariness of the US was, to be sure, not just a leftist pose — many Gaullists, over the decades, have been tinged with anti-Americanism, too. But, although Sarkozy may not have sold his party on the merits of George Bush’s America, he has softened its once habitual suspicions about the US. As a result, a left-right divide has opened in this central area of French diplomacy — a division that has not been seen in France for four decades.
The French left, not surprisingly, rejects Sarkozy’s Atlanticist impulses and frequently charge him with betraying General de Gaulle’s legacy. The majority of French people, however, appear to favor improving ties with the US.
There is more than a little irony here. In the year that the Socialists are celebrating the 40th anniversary of the May 1968 demonstrations against de Gaulle, they are also trying to steal his diplomatic clothes by proclaiming themselves the defenders of the independent French foreign policy that he championed.
In the 1960s, both Socialists and Centrists denounced de Gaulle’s “anti-Americanism.” On NATO, France’s Middle East policy, or the Constitution, Francois Mitterrand (the Socialist leader in the 1960s) and the opposition sharply criticized de Gaulle’s go-it-alone ways for shattering the Alliance consensus. Indeed, the Socialists opposed de Gaulle’s decision to withdraw France from NATO’s unified military command, opposed the creation of an independent French nuclear arsenal (they preferred the US nuclear guarantee), and were hostile to de Gaulle’s rupture with Israel after the Six Day War.
But the Socialists began to change their stripes in the late 1970s, rallying around the concept of nuclear dissuasion as a guarantee of national independence and beginning to distance themselves from the US. Although Mitterrand did stand firm with the US on the stationing of Pershing missiles in Europe in the early 1980s, which won him respect from former US president Ronald Reagan, by this point the Gaullist consensus on the fundamentals of French foreign policy had spread across all political groups. Even the Communist Party could be said to have basically embraced its tenets.
Sarkozy has now broken with this “Gaullist-Mitterrandist” orientation, which was based on the persistence of a belief in French “exceptionalism” in the field of foreign affairs. This does not mean that Sarkozy’s France will toe the US line on all international issues. Far from it. But it does mean that France will no longer oppose the US just for the sake of it.
Pascal Boniface is director of the Institute for International and Strategic Relations in Paris.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath