Since the inception of Franco-American Diplomacy, there has been a consistent pattern of ups and downs in these bilateral relations, depending essentially on the divergence and convergence of perceptions and national interests. I will first review the challenges regarding NATO and Europe insofar as Franco-American diplomacy is concerned. For a more detailed analysis on the Middle East area, please click the hyperlinked brown words in this sentence.
COLLECTIVE SECURITY AND NATO
In the context of collective security then, France is expected to proceed with a plan that would create a European “common arms export policy” based on a proposal recently passed by the European Parliament and one which was spearheaded by France. Furthermore, President Sarkozy wants to harmonize military training in Europe, as well as to europeanize the foreign military bases of EU (European Union) member states while attempting to reintegrate into the military "command" structure of NATO and focus on high-tech weapons as the French government shuts down a few military bases.
While France is a member of NATO and takes part in all political decision-making bodies and contributes financially to the Organization, the country is not presently part of the integrated command structure. France's return to NATO military command would involve the participation of French generals to NATO military headquarters and to the alliance's defense planning committee. (1) In the past, De Gaulle clashed with the U.S. over France's building of its own nuclear force ("La Force de frappe"), Britain's admission into the European Economic Community, the Suez Canal fiasco, a Jordian crisis and the Algerian war. These and other tensions led to de Gaulle's decision in 1966 to withdraw French forces from the integrated military structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and to expel NATO from its headquarters at Fontainebleau. De Gaulle's foreign policy was centered on an attempt to limit the power and influence of the two superpowers of those times (U.S and S.U.), which would increase France's international prestige and market opportunities. De Gaulle hoped to move France from being a follower of the United States to a leading First World power with a large following among certain non aligned Third World developing countries. The nations de Gaulle considered potential participants in this grouping were those in France's traditional spheres of influence, Africa and the Mid East.
Sarkozy, a convinced Gaullist, has the same policy, even though his rhethoric is pro-American. In this perspective, for the United States (and other pro-NATO allies), Sarkozy’s ambitious military plans pose a dilemma. On the one hand, the Americans want the Europeans to assume more of the burden for transatlantic defense, including in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they want the Europeans to do this in a way that does not undermine NATO. (2)
Yet, most of Sarkozy’s proposals seem to be geared toward creating a rival European defense structure that over time will duplicate but not double NATO resources. (3) France, more strongly than any other nation, has seen the European Union as a method of counter-balancing American power, and thus works towards such ends as having the Euro challenge the preeminent position of the United States dollar in global trade and developing a European defense initiative as an alternative to NATO.
For example, the 60,000-strong EU force would draw on the same troops that are currently committed to the 26 Nations who make up NATO. For such an EU force to be viable, troops would need to be on constant standby for EU missions. Considering that all EU countries are already stretched to the limit, Sarkozy’s plans could divert manpower away from NATO missions in Afghanistan and from other potential regional conflict theaters. And nearly all observers agree that the future of the Atlantic Alliance hinges on success or failure in Afghanistan, notwithstanding other issues on which France and the USA are sensitive such as the Hezbolla rise in Lebanon and Hamas problem in Israel, the Iranian race to uranium and mass destruction weapons, Korean nuclear ambitions and the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process and Turkey's regional role.
RECOMMENDATION
President Sarkozy wants to join the military command strucutre of NATO while working for an independent European military force that would, like the Euro, compete with American institutions and public policy. Given France's history, French interests and French leaders' perception of "vital interests", prudence on the part of the U.S. diplomats would be advised. France has vetoed the United States in the past at the Security Council and if Sarkozy is successful in getting back into the military command of NATO, he could use this Institution to veto or threaten to veto an American-led coalition, at the very least exercise the well lubricated Gaullist-French "nuisance" role. A few corroborating facts below.
As the United States began marshalling international support for pre-emptive war against Baghdad, French politicians secretly met with Iraqi officials in May 2002 and "... assured the Iraqis that France would use its veto in the United Nations Security Council against any American resolution to attack Iraq". Central Intelligence Agency. “Regime Finance and Procurement,” Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD (Vol. 1) (30 Sep. 2004). 27 Apr. 2007
After the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, a dossier emerged indicating that French officials "...kept Saddam abreast of every development in American planning and may have helped him to prepare for war. One report warned of an American attempt to associate Iraq with terrorism as “a cover for an attack on Iraq." (Campbell, Matthew. "Dossier Reveals France briefed Iraq on U.S. Plans.” The Sunday Times 27 Apr. 2003).
Another relevant fact: during the preparation of the Iraq war in early 2003, France sought to block U.S.-led efforts to send NATO forces to defend Turkey fearing that these forces would fight Iraq. (Gallis, Paul. “France: Factors Shaping Foreign Policy, and Issues in U.S.-French Relations.” CRS Report for Congress 19 May 2006, at 15). By arguing that acceding to such a request would be tantamount to tacit support from all NATO member states for the impending American invasion, Paris attempted to thwart the U.S. initiative. When this argument did not enjoy pan-European support, the French government ultimately agreed that the decision to aid Turkey would be made in a NATO body where Paris was not a member. (Gallis, Paul. “France: Factors Shaping Foreign Policy, and Issues in U.S.-French Relations.” CRS Report for Congress 19 May 2006, at 23).
GROWING RUSSIAN OIL DEPENDENCY COULD WEAKEN THE EUROPEAN ATLANTIC CAMP
In addition to using precious national resources for additional military expenses, (4) Sarkozy’s military ambition (5) could be all the more dangerous for American and World Peace interests that Europe is slowly getting addicted to Russian “oil security”, (6) an element which could motivate Europe (especially Germany, more allergic to civil nuclear reactors than France) to become less Atlantic, more pro-Russian while feeding all the more a new arms race. (7)
THE NATURE OF INTER-STATE RIVALRY: SCIENCE TRAVELS FASTER THAN DIPLOMACY
"Preserve Global Reach in the Air: We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power." (The President's Agenda)
The nature of rival military political entities is both a function and a factor of military technology and “arms races” whose pace tends to be quicker than the diplomatic processes of peace making and disarmament conferences. (8)
Moreover, during international crises, when diplomacy fails, military capable States often use threats and military conflicts as compensatory and regulatory instruments to further their ambitions and delusions. “War is the continuation of politics by other means” used to say Clausewitz and Raymond Aron (who wrote a book on Clausewitz). Sometimes even national crises and personal delusion and-or ambition can trigger international conflicts. (9)
THE FRENCH "CIVIL NUCLEAR" ENERGY EXPORTATION AND PROLIFERATION POLICY AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH THE UNITED STATES' SECURITY INTERESTS
President Sarkozy is also a staunch pro-nuclear proponent, which increases international risks as motivated third world nations can convert civil nuclear energy into military arms. In this perspective, the French president has been actively spreading civil nuclear energy in the international community based on his idea of "sustainability" (alleging this energy is not dangerous, clean and sustainable) and justifying this action on the basis of international law (pillar three of the NPT, while not respecting the pillar on nuclear disarmament). He is fervently supporting the Areva firm who is aggressively promoting nuclear power expansion despite the risks of weapons conversion and accidents. He is even intensely promoting the claim that nuclear reactors are the best way to handle global warming, (while the Oxford Research Group in 2007 concluded that an additional 2,500 reactors would need to be built by 2075 to significantly mitigate global warming, which equally implies that fossil fuel energies would dwindle down considerably).
This policy may conflict with American national interest as there are inherent security risks in Sarkozy's policy.
In this perspective, President Obama has made it clear that one of his first foreign policy objectives is to reduce the risks and threats of nuclear proliferation.
"...Lead a global effort to negotiate a verifiable treaty ending the production of fissile materials for weapons purposes." (The President's Agenda)
The risk is based on the relative technological ease with which this nuclear technology (even destined for civil use) can be converted to nuclear weapons, notably by desperate and determined countries and-or frustrated and-or zelous ones like Lybia, North Korea, and Iran, all of which have violated international law and the non proliferation treaty (NTP) in order to develop nuclear energy and a nuclear weapons program and all of which have had French nuclear assistance.
With so many Islamic radicals, extremists and nationalists in the Mid East, (partly produced by President Bush's war and diplomacy, partly produced by world poverty and partly produced by ideology), overly ambitious and irresponsible leaders and-or extremists can buy the "know-how" and the nuclear components from low-income nuclear engineers in Russia, East Europe, Pakistan and elsewhere. Or figure out the nuclear weapons technology from the internet and published studies as has done Pakistani students. Motivated groups like Bin Laden's organization may be eventually able to assemble small nuclear and other massive destruction weapons.
Hereinafter the evidence on Mr Sarkozy's aggressive civil nuclear marketing strategy, which generates billions of euro cash flow and gives his country some prestige glow from nuclear intent countries.
1. Franco-India joint statement: From New Delhi, january 25, 2008.
"Both sides recognise that as a reliable source of sustainable and non-polluting energy, it (nuclear energy) could make a significant contribution to meeting the global challenge of achieving energy security, sustainable development, economic growth and limiting climate change," the statement said.
2. Franco-Venezualian nuclear collaboration (october 2008).
" PARIS: France is willing to help Venezuela develop a civilian nuclear-power program, the foreign ministers of both countries said Thursday.French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner also said France would like to use Venezuela — a staunch critic of the United States — as a go-between with Iran in discussions about the Middle Eastern nation's disputed nuclear program, but that Iranian officials have so far proved unreceptive to the approach".
"France has recently signed accords for cooperation on civilian nuclear technology with a host of nations including India and such Muslim nations as Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates".
"a political mistake" to refuse emerging economies access to (...) "civil nuclear rights." (...) "Step by step, by respecting all the security rules, we would like to bring developing nations toward mastery of these technologies," Fillon added. "It is a very important political trend." (...) In recent months, France has signed nuclear cooperation deals with Algeria, Libya and the United Arab Emirates. "If we are unable to find—thanks to science—a means to bring to these inhabitants the energy they need to develop, then we will be forced to prepare for very gloomy days," Fillon warned. (See the French news agency AFP April 12, 2008)
According to the Internation Herald Tribine (July 13 2008) and Greenpeace, President Nicolas Sarkozy "has done everything he could to sell nuclear energy, said Frederic Marillier of the French section of Greenpeace in a statement." At the U.N., as head of the European council, or just recently at the G8, he has behaved like a travelling salesman for Areva and has used political platforms to promote French nuclear power," Marillier said, referring to the French nuclear energy producer Areva.Sarkozy was hosting over 40 heads of state and government in Paris on Sunday for a summit on the partnership between the European Union and countries from the Mediterranean region".
International law and the relationship between the spread of nuclear energy and the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation
As of 2007, 13 (known) states have a nuclear enrichment capability. Because the availability of fissile material has long been considered the principal "pacing element" for a country's nuclear weapons development effort, it was declared a major emphasis of U.S. policy in 2004 to prevent the further spread of uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing (a.k.a. "ENR") technology. (10)
From the international law standpoint, countries possessing ENR capabilities have what is in effect the option of using this capability to produce fissile material for weapons use on demand, thus giving them what has been termed a "virtual" nuclear weapons program. Once these countries have the nuclear technology, thanks to their accession to the TNP agreement (the central Treaty on non Proliferation of nuclear weapons), all they have to do to get out of the binding TNP "non military use of nuclear energy" constraints is to declare "extraordinary circumstances", and-or a "war like situation", as has North Korea. And give a 90 days warning.
Some countries could emulate the two-pronged French nuclear strategy of the Mendès-France and De Gaulle years. First, legally promise not to convert civil nuclear energy to military. Second, entertain political instability, crises and "vital interests" so as to justify "extraordinary circumstances" and the conversion from civil nuclear energy to nuclear military weapons.
The degree to which NPT members have a "right" to ENR technology notwithstanding its potentially grave proliferation implications is at the cutting edge of policy and legal debates surrounding the meaning of Article IV and its relation to Articles I, II, and III of the NP Treaty. Countries like Iraq was cited by the IAEA and sanctioned by the UN Security Council for violating its NPT safeguards obligations; so was North Korea, this country never came into compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and was cited repeatedly for these violations. And later withdrew from the NPT and tested a nuclear device. Iran was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards obligations in an unusual non-consensus decision because it "failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time" to report aspects of its enrichment program. And Lybia pursued a clandestine nuclear weapons program before allegedly abandoning it in December 2003. In 1991 Romania reported previously undeclared nuclear activities by the former regime and the IAEA reported this non-compliance to the Security Council. And Islamic Pakistan has outmanoeuvered the system and built nuclear weapons. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said that by some estimates thirty-five to forty states could have the knowledge to acquire nuclear weapons.(IAEA Board Approves India-Safeguards Agreement).
The "civil nuclear to nuclear weapon conversion" risk is compounded by earthquake accidents and terrorist dangers. In a 2006 report, Greenpeace claimed that "60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000" while the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation reports 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer in children and young people in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.
In Japan, the Rokkasho plant is a big threat because a major quake in the region could trigger an enourmous amount of radioation leak that can also affect the global environment.
And in France, a commercial airliner targeting one of France's 59 nuclear reactor (soon 60, with a new second generation reactor, France converted its power supply to 80 per cent nuclear in the space of just 25 years by building about six reactors a year) would provoke a major catastrophe for the world. Nuclear engineering consultancy Large & Associates, in a Greenpeace commissioned study concluded that a French based EDF document included seriously flawed assumptions about whether the reactor could withstand a potential terrorist attack using hijacked commercial aircraft.
From the Franco-American diplomatic prism, the debate is not one of the legality or necessity of civil nuclear energy. The NPT confirms that this energy is legal for civil use and international practice has confirmed that it can be useful to relieve a country from the pressure and pollution of fossil fuels, notwithstanding its infrastructure costs (Cf. Helen Caldicott's book "Nuclear Power is Not the Answer", wherein she discusses the finances quoting nuclear subsidy in the US over recent decades of 70 billion dollars). And even from the standpoint of energy generation and toxic waste reduction.(Cf Tom Blees' book Prescription for the Planet wherein he focuses on the so-called fourth-generation nuclear technology, or the fast-breeder reactors, which are being built in India, Russia, Japan and China and other countries, which can use 60 to 100 per cent of the potential energy in their uranium ore fuel, whereas the first generation reactors use much less, hence the toxic waste issue is lessened. Fast breeders can also run on depleted uranium. However, they do produce plutonium and that is what nuclear bombs are made from).
The debate is rather centered around the safety of this energy vis a vis possible terrorist attacks within a host country and vis a vis potentially hostile countries whose leaders could use the civil technology to make nuclear weapons. On this score, the evidence shows that France has provided nuclear energy technology to alot of "rogue" or suspicious states, including those which today pose a strategic challenge to the U.S..
A U.S ambassador to France needs to be knowledgeable about these questions.
RECOMMENDATION
If i were the U.S. ambassador to France (or a special envoy), and with the U.S. foreign policy team's consent, I would courteously, but firmly explain to Mr Sarkozy and Bernard Kouchner (who once supported in writting one of my human rights projects), in the same French language they use, and using the same political and legal arguments as the French revolutionaries of the enlightened 18th century, that the very respect of our internationally recognized human rights and duties commands us to re-draft the NTP (non proliferation Treaty) and-or to amend it and-or to elaborate another Treaty so that the transfer of civil nuclear technology is much more restricted. Inspections "after the fact" from the International Atomic Energy Commission are not full proof and often come too late. We need a "precautionary principle" in nuclear issues. Where a Nation who wants to use civil nuclear energy must first have the burden of proving to the international community its peaceful intent, that it is stable and democratic, respectful of fundamental rights and duties and that it has exhausted other more alternative energy recourses before a nuclear Nation like France transfers what has become a potentially threatening pandora box for Humanity and the Planet (i.e. "nuclear winters" can destroy our Planet vegetations).
Meanwhile, i would be very prudent and cautious about President Sarkozy's rhetoric regarding Iran and all else he claims. He is a staunch Gaullist and has followed the footsteps of De Gaulle and Chirac, one observation of which "fait mouche" as say the French:
"...having one or perhaps a second bomb a little later, well, that’s not very dangerous." (Cf. Sciolino, Elaine and Bennhold, Katrin. “Chirac Muses on Iran, then Retreats.” International Herald Tribune 1 Jan. 2007).
Moreover, President Sarkozy is losing public support (see below). As a result, he may have recourse to crises politics in order to win the next Presidential elections. He is very ambitious and People have compared him to Napoléon.
CONFLICTING DISARMAMENT VISIONS WITH FRANCE
President Obama has made it clear that one of his first foreign policy objectives is to reduce the risks and threats of nuclear proliferation.
"...Lead a global effort to negotiate a verifiable treaty ending the production of fissile materials for weapons purposes." (The President's Agenda)
Moreover, President Obama has stressed that better "arms control" ought to be accomplished collectively, that the U.S. will not disarm unilaterally.
"Show the world that America believes in its existing commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to work to ultimately eliminate all nuclear weapons. America will not disarm unilaterally".
However this American policy contradicts Gaullist policy, which bases its defense on nuclear weapons because it can not match a superpower like Russia, a united Germany or the U.S with conventional weapons and manpower. As French general Gallois (who i met on different occasions at IFRI when Dominique Moisi and Thierry de Montbrial were presiding over foreign policy questions), wrote, the atomic bomb compensates, "equalizes" power between small and big Nations. In this framework, Jacques Chirac had proclaimed not too long ago that if France were to be aggressed by a terrorist-supporting country, he would use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy the energy and strategic centers of that country.
CLASSICAL RIVALRY AMONG "GREAT POWERS" FOR MARKETS, RESOURCES, PRESTIGE AND INFLUENCE
Harvard Professor Stanley Hoffman, who often came to IFRI (Institut français des relations internationales) and was Raymond Aron's student, and an expert on Franco-American relations like André Kaspi, would often say regarding French foreign policy: "When the power of military force declines the psychology of the the "verb" (rhetoric) increases".
In this perspective, throughout the 1990's, under both right and left governments, French foreign policy tried to make up for its waning international influence by increasing its rhetoric and nurturing relations with those states which were in conflict with the USA, some of whom were Iran, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba etc. In the case of Iraq, France took advantage of the removal of competition from US companies (via the embargo) and signed major contracts for the exploitation of Iraqi oil reserves. The switch in US policy, from the embargo to the invasion and military occupation of Iraq, has in effect meant the cancelling of all these contracts. That is one of the reasons why there was a conflict of interests between Paris and Washington. There are others. For example, the arms manufacturers in France were opposed to the war in 1991, because Saddam Hussein was one of their best clients. But also by invading Iraq without the UN's approval, President Bush undermined international law and fragilized trust in the entire international community, while giving terrorist and the desperate poor extra reasons to become extremists.
In sum, the respective positions of the Bush-Chirac conflict regarding the Mid-East could be resumed in the following way: the United States under President Bush wanted to invade and occupy Iraq, impose a puppet regime, and gain access to the oil reserves, (including protection Saudi oil, the biggest reserves in the area), whereas France wanted the embargo lifted, to resume collaboration with the Iraqi dictatorship, and gain access to the oil reserves for itself.
Is Nicolas Sarkozy's view of the region very different from that of Jacques Chirac? The two men don't belong to the same generation, and they don't have the same personal ties and experience in the region. In contrast with Chirac's old friendships with many Arab leaders, Nicolas Sarkozy has made clear that he is a friend of Israel.
However, a closer look at the facts reveals that during the campaign, Nicolas Sarkozy used the same rhetorical "astuce" (technique) he used vis-à-vis the US, namely "I am a friend of the US and of Israel… but real friends tell real friends what they think". And what he thinks does not necessarily coincide with what Americans and or Israelis would like to hear. For example, he described Israel's war against Hezbollah in the summer of 2006 as "clumsy and disproportionate". The Quai d’Orsay (The French State Department) used the same words. It should be noted, moreover, that paying heed to the recommendations of a group of experts in 2002, aggressive steps had been taken under Jacques Chirac to improve Franco-Israeli relations, if only because there are more than 800,000 Francophones in Israel and France is the 6th largest trading partner of Tel-Aviv. That which resulted in a marked improvement of diplomatic ties, symbolized by frequent high-level and successful visits of Prime Ministers Sharon then Ehud Olmert in the past three years between the two countries. But that did not undermine France's arab and oil interests because Chirac was simultaneously pro-Arab.
Since he took office in May 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy has not noticeably changed France's stance in the region, and has up to now followed in the footsteps of Jacques Chirac.
So if Sarkozy has not substantially altered French foreign policy, what are the current points of agreement and disagreement between the US and France on the Arab-Israeli conflict? Below a quick analysis between convergence and divergence points.
CONVERGENCE OF PERCEPTIONS AND INTERESTS
On the merits, there is a strong French-US agreement on the question of security for Israel and condemnation of Palestinian terrorism. As for the Iran issue, Nicolas Sarkozy has stated that an Iranian nuclear bomb was not acceptable. Both the U.S. and France have been concerned about the Shia – Sunni rift which has come to dominate the region, whether in Iraq, in Lebanon, or indirectly in the Palestinian territories and having anxiety over Shia domination, now that the Sunni Iraki regime has been destroyed. Shias are traditionally more extremist. Hence, the perceived interests to contain radical Iranian influence in all of these places, and work with the traditional regional allies. Both Paris and Washington appear to be in agreement on these points. As for Israel' s Northern neighbor, the fate of Lebanon and the adoption of a hard line on Syria was, in 2004, one of the first issues on which France and the US resumed active cooperation, with UNSC resolution 1559 and, in May 2006, resolution 1680.
DIVERGENCE OF PERCEPTIONS AND INTERESTS.
While under the Bush foreign policy, the U.S. was relunctant to even speak with hostile nationalist Muslim leaders, Paris has been convinced that peace can only come through a process of negotiations between the two enemies, which means that moderate Palestinian leaders such as Mahmoud Abbas should not be sidestepped, and that they should be helped. In the U.S. often Palestinian leaders have been criticized or undercut, especially by the US Congress, and this has been detrimental to the peace process, according to the French. The conference presided over by Tony Blair, the special envoy of the Quartet expressed an anti-Bush approach, (reinforcing Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad). For Paris, it was crucial that Mahmoud Abbas be reinforced not only in the donors conference, but in Annapolis as well, as a failure to do so would comfort Hamas, which controls Gaza since June 2007, and has been threatening Abbas's rule in the West bank.
Another aim of the Paris conference was to provide more help to the Palestinian population, who has suffered greatly in recent years, especially in Gaza, where the situation is now close to a humanitarian catastrophe. Paris voiced its concern more often than Washington on this issue, and has been providing substantial financial and humanitarian help along with the EU throughout the recent years, because increasing poverty and despair can only lead to further radicalization and embrace of Hamas. Thus for example the Quai d'Orsay reacted negatively on October 29, 2007, when Israeli sanctions against civilians in the Gaza strip (on electricity and fuel supplies) were tightened.
The Bush administration now advocates the creation of a Palestinian state, while France always insisted that it must be a viable Palestinian state, not a patchwork of remote pieces of land. France has been much more vocal than Washington about the uninterrupted growth of illegal settlements in occupied territory, especially in East Jerusalem, which will make a final peace agreement more difficult and threaten the viability of the future state. Of particular concern has been the Maale Adounim settlement and the "E1 zone" project, which separates the Northern from the Southern West Bank. Indeed, on November 18, 2007, while traveling to the region, Bernard Kouchner declared that "colonization is not only contrary to law, it is also the main obstacle to peace from a political point of view.
The U.S under Bush has been against talking with Hezbollah, while Kouchner included Hezbollah in the talks at the conference in La Celle Saint Cloud in July 2007, a move that triggered an angry letter from the US Congress to Sarkozy (Rep. Robert Wexler and signed by 91 of his colleagues).
And this anger matches Chirac's preceding scathing attack against Bush's unilateral war against Iraq, who decided to not pay heed to the U.N.'s refusal to allow the U.S to invade Iraq.
"This adventure has worsened the divisions among communities and threatened the very integrity of Iraq," he said. "It has undermined the stability of the entire region, where every country now fears for its security and its independence. It has offered terrorism a new field for expansion..the priority, more than ever, is to restore full sovereignty to the Iraqi people." ("On Iraq, Chirac reminds U.S. - told you so",
By Elaine Sciolino,
Published: January 5, 2007,
International Herald Tribune, France).
France's opposition to Bush invasion of Iraq triggered a crisis in Franco-American relations that has receded however, thanks to close cooperation between the United States and France to resolve the crisis in Lebanon & Syria and to curb Iran's nuclear program.
But the damage in Franco-American trust ensued. A poll by the Novatris/Harris polling institute of attitudes of five European countries and the United States, released last month, showed that only 6 percent of French people had a favorable opinion of Bush. Even President Vladimir Putin of Russia fared better, with a favorable opinion rating of 9 percent; Fidel Castro of Cuba registered 11 percent.
About 90 percent of the French polled said they favored a retreat of coalition forces in Iraq, compared with 66 percent of Americans.
To conclude this brief analysis, in the Arab world, Sarkozy is continuing the same policy goal as Chirac, but there is a new element as pertains to nuclear energy. Sarkozy is spearheading international influence with nuclear power, thanks to which additional markets and natural resources will open up for the benefit of French firms, rather than American ones. In other words, "plus ça change, plus ça reste pareil", the more things change the more they stay the same. In the instant case, the name of the game is rivalry of sovereign States competing for markets, resources, pestige and power. In other words, we are still in the old Power politics logic well depicted by Professor Marganthau decades ago.
Lastly, on the Israeli-Palestenian conflict, Franco-American perceptions are tainted by History and prejudices. Enduring stereotypes persist in both countries about the other country's stance on the conflict. For example, the French tend to believe that the US and Israel are always in agreement, while the situation is much more conflictual. The pro-Israeli lobby is sometimes credited with more influence than it has. Americans, on their part, tend to think that France is instinctly pro-Palestinian, they sometimes distrust French sentiments vis-à-vis the security of Israel, and they ignore the depth and quality of the relationship between Paris and Tel Aviv. And that Israel's first nuclear reactor (thanks to which Israel was able to make nuclear arms) at Dimona was French built. Likewise for the birth of the State of Israel. It was the French Nation (as well as the Russian Nation) who came to help Israel from the military standpoint. Not the United States.
TRADE WARS, RECESSION, COLLECTIVE INSECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Moreover, there remains the protectionist temptation to increase visible and invisible trade barriers and government subsidies, which would undermine world economy and encourage States to retaliate with similar measures. Measures whose effects would be to depress the economy even more, and push American and French unemployment to new highs and exacerbate franco-american relations as both Governments would be more aggressive in searching for foreign markets and cheap resources with which to better compete in the international arena. During Hitler's war, military conflict preparation and the actual labor and capital intensive economy that was subsequently produced were the two structural conditions which jump started the economic machine, especially in the U.S.
Because there is a consensus that Ricardo's theory on the international division of labor and trade economy fuels growth world-wide, it may be useful for the U.S President, by virtue of Article 6 of the Constitution and practice, to overrule Congressional protectionist measures, as this would violate international agreements and worsen economic recovery. At least in the mainstream.
This is why it makes sense for the Government to invest in sustainability. On the one hand, eco-settlements can act like shock absorbers and safety nets for the satisfaction of basic needs. And on the other hand, the Government can continue participating in world development via the "business as usual" mantra. And because there would be less domestic tensions since demand would decrease via eco villages proliferation, the Government would not have to be as aggressive in finding foreign markets and resources. Thus Franco-American and general conflict would subside.
PATTERNS OF CONFLICTS IN FRANCO-AMERICAN HISTORY AND COMPETING VISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
An analysis of the diplomatic history of France and the United States suggests that the relationship with France will not be without conflicts, even with President Obama who was acclaimed by most of the French as a millions times more promising than President Bush. What the French call "constantes" are factors that seldom change in France's national interest. A brief history of the last 50 years will confirm recurrent issues, not least of which was the misperceptions of the Roosevelt Administration during Hitler's war, when the foreign policy team of then rejected De Gaulle and accepted the fascist regime of Vichy. After the war, when Charles de Gaulle became president he clashed again with the U.S. over France's building of its own nuclear weapons (see: Force de frappe), among many other issues. After de Gaulle's decision in 1966 to withdraw French forces from the integrated military structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and to expel NATO from its headquarters at Fontainebleau, France's foreign policy was centered on an attempt to limit the power and influence of both superpowers by creating a multipolar world with a third current of non aligned Nations, the head of which would be France.
" In this light, he repeated his approval of the emergence of a "multipolar world," as countries like China, India and Brazil assume "the status of global powers." The Bush administration interpreted the phrase as envisioning competition with American interests and influence.
Relations improved somewhat under de Gaulle's successors, but tensions reappeared intermittently. France, more strongly than any other nation, has seen the European Union as a method of counter-balancing American power, and thus works towards such ends as having the Euro challenge the preeminent position of the United States dollar in global trade and developing a European defense initiative as an alternative to NATO.
Overall, the U.S. has much closer relations with the other large European powers, Great Britain and Germany. In the 1980s the two nations cooperated on some international matters but disagreed sharply on others, such as Operation El Dorado Canyon and the desirability of a reunified Germany. Interior Minister Charles Pasqua expelled in 1995 CIA agents from France, on charges of economic espionage. France, along with other nations as Germany, Belgium, China and Russia, opposed the proposed new UN resolution authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq on March 11, 2003. French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin emerged as a prominent critic of the George W. Bush administration's policies pertaining to Iraq. Despite the recurring rifts, the often ambivalent relationship remained formally intact. A few days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Jacques Chirac ordered the French secret services to collaborate tightly with US intelligence. In this perspective, he created A a joint-intelligence service to help the Bush administration's "War on Terrorism". Public attempts to boycott French goods in retaliation for perceived French "active hostility toward America" ultimately fizzled out. The Iraq war, the attempted American boycott of French products, as well as the anti-French campaigns waged by some American commentators and politicians resulted in increased suspicion against the United States in the French population. Similar suspicions were felt in the United States toward the population and government of France: as of 2006, only one American in six considered France an ally of the United States. Recently, relations between the two nations have begun to normalize. A Pew Global Attitudes survey in June 2006 revealed that 52% of Americans had a positive view of France, up from 46% in 2005. Other reports indicate Americans are moving not so much toward favorable views of France as toward ambivalence, and that views toward France have stabilized roughly on par with views toward Russia and China.
TENTATIVE CONCLUSION
The State Department's mission statement is to:
"Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community."
In this perspective, President Sarkozy’s defense ambitions and nuclear exportation policies may threaten international stability, if only because civil nuclear stations in less developed countries have been known to facilitate the production of weapons of mass destruction. (11)
Given the stakes, the next U.S. Ambassador to France ought to be well acquainted with the workings of Europe and its defense system.
In Franco-American diplomatic relations, Europe is more and more relevant as the recent Lisbon Treaty established a legally new European Union. This is a Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State. (12)
THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT MAY NEED TO BETTER ANTICIPATE THE "APRÈS" SARKOZY CHESSBOARD
Dealing with France therefore means not only greater involvement with Europe, but also a better understanding of what the French People really want, as it is not unlikely that Sarkozy will be replaced as President during the next presidential elections with a more leftist and possibly less Atlantic Government. (13)
Indeed, after less than two years of Presidential Governance, there are already recurrent indicators that Sarkozy’s government will not withstand the passage of time. Last April 8th, the French Government faced a vote of no confidence, as Socialists accused President Nicolas Sarkozy of a dangerous “Atlanticist drift” that risked turning France into Bush’s poodle. Socialist leader François Hollande (Segolène Royale’s former partner) said Sarkozy decided to send 700 French troops to Afghanistan “under pressure from the Americans” and that France risked losing its independence on the world stage.
One should never underestimate the soveign will of the French Nation. As it is, by French constitutional law, the French People who are sovereign. The Sarkozy Government claims that its decisions are carried out in the name and for the benefit of the People, “le Peuple”. But in some aspects of French public policy, this assessment may have been determined too rapidly. The Fifth Constitution organically incorporates France's Fourth Constitution which provides that the Law of Nations (public international law) takes precedence over French national law. Thus, Peace construction is more important that Napoléonic-style military ambitions. (In the French press, Sarkozy has often been compared to Napoléon). Why invest in an alternative NATO if France can fully reintegrate this military Alliance ?
In this context, a French born and cultured U.S. ambassador to France could courteously remind the French Government and the French People of these "peace keeping and building" responsibilities under international law, if only because public opinion polls show that President Sarkozy is losing the media image contest and the next French President in 2012 may very different from Sarkozy. A recent poll shows that 55 percent of the French do not want Nicolas Sarkozy to even be a presidential candidate in 2012.
In the sphere of “vital security interests”, my analysis of Franco-American History made evident a conflictual process pattern between the two States, not only because of divergences of objective interests as rival States, but also and especially because of divergences of perceptions between the leaders of the two nations. In the spicy History of Franco-American diplomatic relations, it is well known that the leaders of these countries have often misjudged the other, from Roosevelt's pro Vichy support (the French German collaborationist government during Hitler's war) and Bush's "french fries" attack to De Gaulle's anti-Americanism in Québec and elsewhere (14)
Be that as it may, one of the first assessments American intelligence and the U.S foreign policy team need to ascertain is the degree to which President Sarkozy's military independence schemes and civil nuclear ambitions are threatening to U.S interests and world peace. The U.S also needs to seriously think about what the French collectively want and how the U.S. and the international community's interests can be furthered without creating un-necessary major conflicts between the two countries.
If confirmed that there is a Sarkozy threat, the U.S. ambassador to France would need to find courteous but strong arguments the French Nation would understand to persuade the Sarkozy government to participate more effectively in certain regional conflicts like in Afghanistan while ceasing to prepare schemes to duplicate NATO and spreading civil nuclear technology in Europe and the world. With Russian and East European nuclear experts being both low income and available, determined Nations and groups (like Bin Laden's organization) can find the means by which to convert civil nuclear technology into nuclear weapons.
This is also why President Obama's intentions of massively favoring the production of alternative energies is perfect, as green affordable technology could be exported to France to encourage that Nation's People to pressure the Sarkozy Government and the ENA (Ecole Nationale d'Administration) bureaucrats and French nuclear technocrats to reduce France's huge civil nuclear park and its exportation policies.
*****
Be that as it may, French American diplomatic relations are nonetheless special and unique. These relations remain a pivotal key to any progress in the International Community and in the law of Nations. Without the French enlightenment and the human rights era (enshrined in the work and efforts of Diderot, Condorcet, Grégoire, (15) Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Tocqueville and others), today’s political freedom and Democracy in America would have been less secured. In this realm, different studies show that of all political philosophers from Europe, Montesquieu is the one who is the most quoted by our past law makers and constitutionalists. Similarly, without Rochambeau’s fleet, the King’s money and Lafayette’s military expertise, Yorktown would never have been a victory, the American Virginian farmer-rebels would not have been able to conquer their Independence when they did. Even if the King of France and Talleyrand opted to fight England in America first and foremost to safeguard commercial and strategic interests. In a similar manner, without the help of the United States, both in terms of values, technology and military might (World Wars One and Two), France could have been destroyed as a sovereign State. (16) Even if Roosevelt joined the war effort belatedly and was not as "disinterested" as he made it sound.
******
IN THE CONTEXT OUTLINED ABOVE, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ADVANTAGES OF HIRING JOUBERT AS U.S. AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE
For Christian, there is the conviction that Joubert at the helm of the U.S. Ambassadorship to France would be an asset for the Obama Administration, if only because of his French culture, 'his iron will' and good manners.
"In addition, his courtesy, good education and his iron will to serve make his employment very agreeable" Roger Archeriteguy. Editor in chief of the Paper Sud Ouest, Bordeaux.
Given France's world presence and taking into consideration the difficulty with which most French leaders deal with the U.S. and vice versa, the problems of "misperceptions" (e.g. Even Roosevelt and his foreign policy team of then goofed up with De Gaulle, prefering to support a fascist Vichy whose men collaborated with Hitler) on many issues, including but not limited to NATO, nuclear and Mid-East issues, it would make sense to hire a U.S ambassadorship to France who speaks French like an educated Frenchman, who know France inside out, who taught Franco-American diplomatic relations for eight years, Mid-East studies for 7 years, international relations and international law for close to 10 years, nuclear issues for 4 years and has lived close to one year in Israel while having been an active member of IFRI (institut français des relations internationales for ten years, France's best foreign policy think tank, see Dominique Moisi's recommendation letter in the qualification section. Dominique was the former deputy director of this Institut and is presently professor of international relations in France and Poland, he often comes to the U.S. and Israel for symposiums and teaches and writes lots of articles and books (and he was also a dissertation student of Raymon Aron, as i was).
With the approval of the President and the Secretary of State, and in partnership with the Diplomatic Team, I would also use my energy to contribute in consensual projects between the two Nations (17), some of which I have outlined in my twelve "proposals (see homepage), the most important one being the establishment of at least one holistic health sustainable eco-village in the mountains of France and in the US. Ecovillaging remains a springboard from which to jump into another Era, into President Obama's Era of Responsibility (i.e., being sustainably responsible in regard to one's satisfaction of his or her basic needs and doing this without counting on the State and in a holistical way).
In this perspective, a U.S Ambassador to France who can deliver French speeches with the same “fougue” as Sarkozy (though with less experience and "panache", I would need to brush up some) would be all the more an asset to American diplomacy and President Obama’s agenda that he could communicate directly to the French People to let them know that the Obama and NATO agenda is to promote more international peace and prosperity among States than international rivalry, arms and nuclear proliferation.
FOOTNOTES
(1). François Heisbourg, a military expert and special adviser to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in Paris predicted France would actually rejoin by the time of a Franco-German summit in March next year (Heisbourg had helped draft Sarkozy's military plan). While France is a member of NATO and takes part in all political decision-making bodies and contributes financially to the Organization, it is not part of the integrated command structure. A return to NATO command would involve the appointment of French generals to NATO military headquarters and to the alliance's defense planning committee.
(2). "US Relationship with France - France and United States Relations". Retrieved on 2008-12-1
(3). And Sarkozy has already made it clear that the centerpiece of his ambitious agenda will be the full development of an autonomous European Security and Defense Policy. This trend is nothing new. Inspired by Napoléon, triggered by De Gaulle, continued by Chirac, Sarkozy is befriending the US in order to achieve greater independence via an independent military force. For a historical analysis of this issue, please see www.diploweb.com and Défense natinale et sécurité collective, November 2008, pp. 17-21.
(4). Albeit some announced military budget reduction. Sarkozy said terrorism was the biggest threat to French security, and he pledged to create a leaner, more mobile and better-equipped army. He called for a doubling of the intelligence budget for new satellites, drones and other surveillance equipment, but plans to offset that by trimming the army, navy and air force from 271,000 troops to 224,000, with the army alone set for a 24% cut in personnel.
(5). In France, he is often compared to Napoléon, not only because of his short height, but also beca0use of his temperament and ambitions.
(6). Indeed, Germany’s (and Europe’s) dependence on Russian energy imports may reach 70 percent by 2020, which (if current German behavior is any gauge) could give Russia a de facto veto over decisions on German (and European) security. Last March 4, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier gave a speech titled “Towards a European Ostpolitik” in which he suggests that Europe’s future lies in staking out a position mid-way between the United States and Russia.
(7). This is another reason why the next U.S Ambassador to France should be well versed on alternative and complementary energies and global warming reduction strategies. American influence could here too make a difference, given French enthusiasm with President Obama’s election and their receptivity to non polluting energies.
(8). Under the direction of Pierre Lellouche, of IFRI (Institut Français des relations internationals), a group of French experts had studied this question in the 90s and concluded that Science travels faster than Diplomacy.
(9). An example of war via delusion is Hitler’s war, an illustration of war via ambition, Alexander the Great’s wars and wars for internal control, the Roman wars.
(10). See wikipedia's encyclopedia for confirmation.
(11). Once Western-educated Third World scientists have mastered civil nuclear fission energy technology, once the material and equipment are in place, nothing stops a motivated leader to secretly develop military nuclear research and weapons, even if it means violating the non proliferation Treaty.
(12). The provision of the Lisbon Treaty that "The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community" (Art.1.3, amended TEU) makes clear that the post-Lisbon Union will be a new entity. The new European Union will have its own government, with a legislative, executive and judicial arm, its own political President, its own citizens and citizenship, its own human and civil rights code, its own currency, economic policy and revenue, its own international treaty-making powers, foreign policy, foreign minister, diplomatic corps and United Nations voice, its own crime and justice code and Public Prosecutor. It already possesses such normal State symbols as its own flag, anthem, motto and annual official holiday.
(13). Most of the peoples of Europe do not want a highly centralized Federal European Union whose most striking feature is that it is run by committees of politicians, bureaucrats and judges, none of whom are directly elected by the people. The Constitutional Treaty setting it up has already been rejected by the French and the Dutch in 2005. As French President Nicolas Sarkozy has admitted, the Prime Ministers and Presidents of Europe have agreed among themselves to refuse to have referendums on the renamed Constitutional Treaty, for that would be rejected everywhere again.
(14) Please see A short history of Franco-US discord Le Monde diplomatique, English edition March 2003.
(15). Abbé Henri Grégoire was, one of the key human rights heroes of the European enlightenment in the 18th century whoses efforts significantly help to emancipate Jews and Blacks
(16) See also: U.S.-France Relations (1763–Present) Council on Foreign Relations.
(17). In particular, French leadership sees with a reassuring eye the following Obama foreign policy statement: " Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that America has both a moral obligation and a responsibility for security that demands we confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis - more than five million Iraqis are refugees or are displaced inside their own country. Obama and Biden will form an international working group to address this crisis. They will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find sanctuary. Obama and Biden will also work with Iraqi authorities and the international community to hold accountable the perpetrators of potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. They will reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq" .