A lack of vision and a missing sense of reality have led French diplomacy on a path of decline, according to a group of former French ambassadors and experts.
The current state of French diplomacy was initiated by former French president Nicolas Sarkozy and it is worth taking a closer look at former French minister for foreign affairs, Laurent Fabius, who has left the government to head the Constitutional Council. As for his successor, former prime minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, it is unlikely he can reverse a trend in an area which remains the ultimate responsibility of President Francois Hollande.
The latter has rightfully been credited recently with a few successes: The brave and meaningful decision to intervene in Mali — although it was a move mainly managed by the French Armed Forces; or the satisfactory, although partly fictive, outcome of the Climate Change COP21 conference.
But there are two areas in which France showed both a lack of leadership and a misinterpretation of events, which doesn’t excuse its European partners of their own omissions.
The first area is obviously Europe. Despite German Chancellor Angela Merkel being considered its “natural leader”, her inability to inflate a new European spirit was an opportunity for Hollande to fill the gap and take the flame over. It is one thing indeed to participate in the Greek bailout or stand firm to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Ukraine. But winning the hearts and minds of the European population is a wholly different thing, the legal frame of which is being tested by the growingly worrying refugee crisis and the upcoming possible British exit of the European Union.
Hollande was smart enough not to open up the gates of Europe, as Merkel did after shocking images of a drowned Syrian boy on a Turkish beach showed the tragic plight of refugees. But Europe needs more than to limit the refugees from entering its territories (at the heavy price of succumbing to Turkish blackmail), or to sticking to balancing public accounts. What have been Hollande’s proposals on the future of Europe? As for ‘Brexit’, it is an internal matter for the British Government, but with consequences that could lead to holding Europe hostage. By taking the step forward to seek a referendum, Britain has dampened any possible hopes for a stronger Europe.
Lastly, and following Sarkozy’s move to reintegrate the unified commanding structure of Nato, Hollande has given up much of what made French diplomacy autonomous, and recognised abroad, 20 years ago.
The other area of declining influence for France has obviously been the Middle East in terms of a continuation of the insane policy in Syria; there has been meddling in internal affairs and making rebels believe they would be supported by France (which the country did not have the means to do); interfering in a sectarian dispute that was not of concern to France, where it had nothing to gain and which has now prevented it to act as a fair broker and lacking the courage to tell some allies to stop financing France’s genuine enemies. All of this has contributed to making France a partner very few still listen to in discussions regarding the region’s future.
A main explanation for this has been France’s failure to grasp the full picture. Actually, French diplomacy misread certain scenarios in Syria, going with what France wanted to see instead of what was actually happening on the ground.
A naive slogan, “Bashar [Al Assad] should leave first”, coupled with some of Fabius’ irresponsible comments such as, “[Jabhat] Al Nusra is doing a good job on the field”, caused damage to France’s credibility. “Who is France’s main enemy?” columnist Renaud Girard recently asked in Le Figaro. Surely not Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, but Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). One should not confuse one’s enemies.
In the end, some may argue that French bombings of Daesh positions have weakened it. But what will the final result be beyond the dramatic attacks perpetrated on the French territory? The Charles-De-Gaulle aircraft carrier will leave the area sooner or later, and the future of Syria is more than ever in foreign hands — starting with Russia, which has a strategy and sticks to it, and which Hollande wisely snubbed.
The story unfortunately doesn’t stop here. The presence of Daesh in Libya, where France will probably have to intervene with reduced military means, constitutes another forthcoming challenge — add to this Tunisia’s state of uncertainty and more importantly, although nobody talks about it, a fast deteriorating economic and social situation in Algeria, and that makes the threat of thousands of Algerian citizens fleeing to France a likely scenario.
In the end, Europe could wind up disintegrating in front of passive French eyes. France has nearly no say in Syria and time-bombs in North Africa are new threats the country will have to address with greater vigour. We stop short of making other comments on the situation in Sahel, where France finds itself very lonely. All that is the result of an absence of vision and a misreading of the current realities. It is not certain that a new French president will be enough to reverse the trend overnight.
Luc Debieuvre is a French essayist and a lecturer at Iris (Institut de Relations Internationales et Strategiques) and the Faco Law University of Paris.
