From the Caucasus in August last year to the Middle East in January, is France under President Nicolas Sarkozy attempting to incarnate what might be called “the West by default,” making maximum use of the window of opportunity opened by the US’ presidential transition?
Or is Sarkozy simply trying to capitalize on his global visibility to reinforce his popularity at home, where a majority of French citizens continue to support their hyperactive president’s diplomatic leadership? Despite his failed bid to orchestrate a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, was he not right to try?
For the French, Sarkozy’s determination to act, despite the odds, seems far superior to the passive cynicism of those who preach abstention or satisfy themselves with empty words.
Beyond its impact on the Middle East, Sarkozy’s failed but brave attempt to act as a go-between constitutes an interesting window into the foreign-policy methods and ambitions of today’s France. For one essential question about Sarko-diplomacy is whether it reflects a well-defined strategy, based on a clear vision of the world, or merely expresses a shrewd and pragmatic activism that applies a keen domestic political instinct to the field of foreign affairs?
The answer is far from clear, and is probably a combination of both. Sarkozy is a man prone to following his instincts. He does not theorize about what should be done — he simply does it, without any ideological bias or constraint.
Yet, as time passes, one senses the emergence of something like a new French self-definition, which is probably the most clearly “Western” in the history of the Fifth Republic. As a presidential candidate, Sarkozy was often described as “Sarkozy the American,” an expression that alluded to his can-do style, his taste for “bling,” and the very American way in which he used his personal history to gain the support of would-be voters. But now one could describe him as “Sarkozy the Westerner.”
This is not only because he has been willing to have France act, from the Caucasus to the Middle East, in the name of Europe and itself at a time when the US was defaulting on its role. Nor is it simply the result of Sarkozy’s decision to bring France closer to the US, a move that will culminate symbolically with France’s likely return to the integrated military body of NATO in April.
In a deeper way, Sarkozy’s diplomacy reflects changes in how the French president thinks about the idea of “the West” in today’s globalized world. Under former president Charles de Gaulle, France combined faithfulness to the Western cause in time of crisis with a strong willingness to promote its diplomatic independence and freedom of maneuver. And, despite their very different styles, both former presidents Valery Giscard d’Estaing and Francois Mitterrand were more “European” than “Western.”
The same cannot be said of Sarkozy, despite his claims to the contrary. His rapprochement with the UK and his noticeable distancing of France from Germany are, from this perspective, no accident.
In a world where, in comparative terms, there is less US because of the rise of China and India and the resurgence of Russia, and less Europe in diplomatic and strategic terms (because of institutional paralysis), if not economic and cultural terms, France, according to Sarkozy, must clearly define itself as part of the West.
And, just as the very notion of the West must now be analyzed and probably redefined for the 21st century, so France must play a central part in this act of reassessment. Is the West a concept defined above all by its political culture, ie, democracy and human rights, by its cultural dimension, including religion, or merely by its diplomatic and strategic implications, ie, facing the rise of new powers?
If the concept of the West is to become the new cornerstone of France’s diplomatic identity, it must be applied with prudence and moderation, even as US President Barack Obama’s arrival in the White House is likely to improve its image of the premier Western power. France is not in the same league in terms of power and influence as the US. Moreover, it would be paradoxical if, just when the US declares its willingness to call more upon its allies, particularly its European allies, the concept of the West actually leads to the diminution, if not the burial, of the European ideal.
Dominique Moisi is a visiting professor at Harvard University and the author of The Geopolitics of Emotions.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS