Opinions | Columnists
Sarkozy's Nato plan can backfire
The disagreement forms an essential and central aspect of the French-American relationship.
- By Pascal Boniface, Special to Gulf News
- Published: 00:19 May 23, 2008
So far we cannot yet evaluate with precision the strategic repercussions of President Nicolas Sarkozy's decisions to reinstate France within Nato's integrated military organs and to strengthen the French military contingent in Afghanistan by sending in an additional 700 soldiers. On the other hand, the consequences of Sarkozy's domestic politics are already known. Such projects imply the end of what was known as the French consensus on foreign policy.
Indeed, all left-wing political parties denounce Sarkozy's departure from the diplomatic heritage of the Fifth Republic. Actually, the disagreement forms an essential and central aspect of the French-American relationship.
A left-right divide on this type of issues, which had disappeared for a long time, has now reappeared. The majority is in favour of reinforcing ties with Washington, a policy that is being implemented by Sarkozy. The left-wing opposition rejects an Atlantist alignment and criticises what is considered as a betrayal of Gaullism.
The situation is ironic as it is completely reversed compared to the political configuration of the 60's. At that time, the ruling Gaullists turned their backs on Nato and denounced the US hegemony.
Socialists and Centrists who were in these days in the opposition blamed Charles de Gaulle for breaking up the Atlantic solidarity and denounced his "anti-Americanism".
Concerning Nato, the Middle East, or the constitution of a national nuclear force, Francois Mitterrand and the opposition of that time acutely criticised De Gaulle. They were opposed to Nato's pullback, were against France's nuclear arsenal (and had preference for an American nuclear warrantee), and hostile to the strategic rupture with Israel after the Six-Day War.
The change took place at the end of the 70's. The left-wing political force rallied around the concept of nuclear dissuasion as a guarantee for national independence. And also as a must if they want to have some credibility on strategic issues. It was taken for granted since this period that if you could not win elections on strategic matters, you could lose it on these issues. The social democrats therefore kept its distance from Washington. Mitterrand was the first French president to visit Israel and was also the first occidental head of state to plead for the creation of a Palestinian state in his speech at the Knesset in 1982.
In the 80's, all the political groups represented in parliament shared the same analysis concerning major diplomatic issues, and even the Communist Party until it later moved aside from the Socialist Party.
We celebrated the French consensus on defence and foreign affairs in opposition to the past dissensions on these issues, and in contrast with the traditional French trend to disagree on all other political subjects and with the violent European dispute on the Euro missiles issue.
Consensus
There used to be a consensus on the doctrine of French dissuasion, on France/Nato's relations (France allied, but not aligned and always prone to claim its difference with Washington), on Europe (we have to make of Europe a regional power contributing to the emergence of a multi polar world), on North/South relations (it is necessary to take into account the political, strategic and economic aspirations of Southern countries). There was also a quasi unanimous parliamentary consensus to vote against Iraq in 1991 for invading Kuwait, and for a military operations under the aegis of the United Nations Security Council.
After the end of the bipolar world in the early 90's, various changes occurred geopolitically and politically. Beyond partisan groups, there were on both political sides proponents of a so-called gaullo mitterrandist orientation, which was for the Fifth Republic and based on the persistence of a French claimed specificity in the diplomatic field.
Those who opposed it, "the Atlantists", insisted on the concept of an occidental family community and thus recommended a closer relation to Washington. But this opposition existed within each political formation that was represented in parliament (except in the Communist Party in which there was of course no Atlantist position), and not between them. Successive periods of cooperation have reinforced such a tendency, made of governmental continuity and of divergences on strategic matters that went beyond political parties.
The successive signs of bridge-building with Washington operated by Sarkozy and the strengthening antagonisms concerning domestic politics have recreated a visible political left-right divide on such issues.
Even the Atlantist wing within the Socialist Party is now criticising the French reintegration into Nato. There is again an alignment or division between the right and the left on international issues. This division is partly tactical, (the opposition must be against the government) partly strategical (is there any necessity to rally Bush once he is rejected not only on the international stage but also in US?). This gap will largely widen if Republican Senator John McCain is elected in November. It is ironical to attend to the switch - contrary to the 60's, the Gaullists are pro-American and the socialists celebrate national autonomy.
Dr Pascal Boniface is the founder and director of IRIS (Institut de Relations Internationales et Strategiques). He has published or edited more than 40 books dealing with international relations, nuclear deterrence and disarmament, European security and French international policy.
Share this article
More from Columnists
More from Opinions
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: Cyberbullying
How can we protect our children from being Cyber bullied?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Spare a thought for workers
While most people are enjoying the Eid festivities, others are working on holidays
-
Relic returns to relevance
The once-derided Commonwealth is now wielding real influence in the changing landscape of global politics
-
India's familiar stance on climate change
The nation is determined to enforce carbon emission norms on its own terms
