April 30, 2008 |  8 comments |  Print this Article | E-Mail Pro & Con  

Gaelle Fisher

Sarkozy l' Américain?

Gaelle Fisher

The election of Nicolas Sarkozy was a source of hope for the future of Franco-American and transatlantic relations. Sarkozy made no secret of his intention to kick start a new era of French foreign policy and effect a radical break away from a forty year old Gaullist anti-American tradition, loyally held up by his predecessor Jacques Chirac. Now nearly a year has gone by since the proclaimed “rupture” and in July France will assume the European presidency. Has “Sarkozy l’Américain” truly improved the state of transatlantic relations and earned his reputation as the most pro-American president France has ever had?

PRO:

  • Pro-American Rhetoric
    Braving the current of French popular opinion, Sarkozy acknowledges that France has little to gain from systematically opposing the United States. A pro-American approach enables France to voice its visions of the international order. The shift was made explicit as early as May 6, 2007 on the evening of his electoral victory: “I want to reach out to our American friends to tell them they can count on our friendship […] I want to tell them that France will always be on their side when they need her …” Sarkozy’s visit to the United States in November 2007 gave the president the opportunity to express his admiration for the US and emerge as the new central partner for Washington in Europe after Blair’s departure. His advisory and parliamentary staff has contributed to the political rapprochement. His foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, is famously transatlanticist. The president’s major foreign policy advisor, Jean David Levitte, spent the last years working on calming the transatlantic storm in his capacity as French ambassador to Washington and has successfully helped the president rebuild strong transatlantic relations.

  • Geostrategic Conversion
    Rapprochement of the two nations has been facilitated by Sarkozy and Kouchner’s support of the United States’ tough line regarding Iran’s nuclear program. This contrasts with other European leaders’ positions as well as Chirac’s earlier cautious approach to conflicts and tensions in the Greater Middle East. Sarkozy additionally shares Washington’s serious take on security threats to Israel and its critical posture towards Russia and China, especially with regard to their human rights records and their perceived unfair and imbalanced trade policies.

  • Military Rapprochement
    Sarkozy has agreed to increase France’s contribution to the war effort in Afghanistan by adding 1500 to 1700 to the existing French contingent of 1600, sending combat troops to the East, and providing military arsenal. Yet the main new element of French military cooperation with the United States is Sarkozy’s commitment to reintegrating France into NATO’s military wing. He announced this bold step at the NATO Summit in Bucharest in early April. In exchange for rejoining, Sarkozy is likely to demand France be granted control of a key NATO command.

CON:

  • Sarkozy the “Old European”
    One element of continued French “Anti-Americanism” is Sarkozy’s alignment with the policies of “Old Europe.” At the NATO Summit in Bucharest, he sided with Germany, Britain, and Spain in their opposition to Bush’s plan to offer MAPs to Ukraine and Georgia which revealed the limits of his support to Washington. He does not ignore that “Old Europe” remains tied together by common geostrategic challenges and interests that can conflict with America’s international objectives. The breach between the Bush administration and “Old Europe” is particularly evident regarding climate change. The war in Iraq also remains a thorn in the relationship between France and the United States since Chirac’s applauded rejection of military involvement in 2003. In addition, Sarkozy holds Washington responsible for the weakness of the dollar and blames the US for not acting to combat the crisis efficiently enough, thereby harming French foreign trade.

  • A Split Commitment: NATO-ESDP
    Despite Sarkozy’s praise of NATO, it can be argued that he merely views the Alliance as a tool to strengthen France’s military capacity and global involvement. By endorsing full membership of NATO, he may be hoping to restrict it to a role which leaves room for the development of a parallel and counterbalancing European Security and Defense Policy. This is why Sarkozy demanded US endorsement of the ESDP in exchange for France rejoining the military structures of NATO. A few days before the Bucharest Summit, Sarkozy paid a short visit to the UK to secure Gordon Brown’s endorsement of the ESDP. Committing to NATO proved necessary to negotiate with the Americans and the British since both fear that the ESDP could become a rival to NATO if France did not rejoin.

  • French Unilateralism
    Sarkozy's unilateral foreign policy has hindered transatlantic progress within the last year and antagonized both his European and international partners. Among other things, Sarkozy acted in Darfur before the international community could decide on a common strategy; he carried out nuclear agreements with states such as the United Arab Emirates without involving the US; and finally, he welcomed the Libyan Colonel Gaddafi in Paris although the dictator’s credentials are still highly questionable. On the European level too, many of Sarkozy’s initiatives have been unilateral. These include the proposal of a mini-treaty instead of the European Constitution in September 2006, the re-discussion of the Turkish question, and the forcing of the Mediterranean Union. In the light of Sarkozy’s prioritization of national interests, these elements of his foreign policy seem less dictated by the intention to revive transatlantic relations or the promotion of multilateralism than by the aim of restoring France’s great power status.

Cast your vote in the poll to the right. If you are not a member of the Atlantic Community yet, please join us here, it will only take a second.

Gaelle Fisher is a graduate in German and History from UCL and an intern at the Atlantic Community.

 

 
 
Comments
ilyas m mohsin

Fri, May 2nd 2008, 07:24

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Sarkozy appears to be a man whom Matthew Arnold portrayed in his great verse, "wandering between two world,
one dead the other powerless to be born." Unfortunately he is not alone
facing a forlorn footing which bedevils the transatlantic bugbear.
 
Unregistered User

Mon, May 5th 2008, 19:40

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"Sarkozy l'Américain" - is so typical an expression. But is Nicholas Sarkozy so 'americain'? Sarkozy is often said to symbolise a break from his predecessors. Gaullist France and the second world war still veer large in the shadows, while the EU has surpassed many expectations in its success - of the re-interpratation of the realist 'billiard-ball' states to the constructivist notions of 'learnt' behaviour and hence the capacity to 're-learn' if not 'unlearn'. So much so that popular perception in many parts of the world often seem to forget that Europe was the theatre of two world wars.
The expression of Nicholas Sarkozy as 'l'americain' is part of the 'unlearnt' notions that still bedevils much of European imaginations. It also succintly puts forth Europe's views and opinions over the US. But Nicholas Sarkozy is also an immigrant and perhaps profits from his views that may not reflect France's traditional opposition to much of what the US has come to represent - largely as 'unfeeling' corporate world of the de-sensitized or in Marxian terms - the 'alienated' human. The US, as a country of the 'carpet-baggers', may seem to share the entreprenurial spirit of the wanderer that knows how to survive - in Sarkozy's own personal history as an immigrant who has become the President of France!
It does not mean any strategic departure, for apart from the existence of the 'stealth' prototype of a global vision - there is not much of strategic vision almost anywhere in the world. Issues and 'yesterday's backlogs' pre-occupy much of the fire-fighting machinery even today and small 'bush-fires' keep propping up here and there in the global arena. Those that are relatively away from the 'heat' and whose line of view is less skewed by the distortion of hot air rising - are busy with the 'stealth' prototype of a world vision and much is happening silently and usually do not occupy media-space that controversies do - in the subversion of media in many places by sensationalism and the consumerism that propels it.
Such views of the US as the engine behind such consumerism - however prejudiced - do exist and do explain to some extent European sentiments about the US. The entrepreunerial spirit should not be confused with 'consumerism' - but then, as mentioned before - not much media space goes to those developments that mark the gradual movement towards a better world. Trans-atlantic relations - forged under, again, the second world war - is less of a victim of such prejudice and more the concern of the direction and the vision that may be commonly shared - across the spectrum, while fire-fighting exercises continue to put out old historical fires. How does one do that without starting a new one?
Yet, the relevant question does remain - why should being an 'americain' be less desirable a thing in Europe and France, while being European is often seen as being quite exotic in the US!
The difference between Californian wine and Champagne notwithstanding, nor over the quality of cheese - Europe sounds more privileged and Sarkozy may be someone who can empathise with certain traits, across the shores.
Cultural theories making a comeback via me? One merely would want to look at the reasons and 'understand' the pourquoi of a few things that may truly help the trans-atlantic relations grow better. Having a major faultline running between the perception of the elites of particular states and its populace - one wish that one could wish that away - makes one look at envy towards the Scandinavian belt!
 
Unregistered User

Tue, May 6th 2008, 23:31

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I think Ms Fisher is forgettng that technically France is a full member of NATO....
Tags: | NATO |
 
Michael  Schuster

Wed, May 7th 2008, 00:00

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@ Hillblogger3

And technically, we are a community of values.

Anyway, France is not fully integrated in the military structure of NATO. So there you go.

Sure, NATO has contributed a lot to NATO over the decades anyway.
 
Member deleted

Thu, May 8th 2008, 14:52

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"But is Nicholas Sarkozy so ‘americain’? " Well, in the sense that he is an empty-suit, he is.

He inclines towards American neocons, even though they are on the decline and will disappear if the Dems win in November. They will probably attack Iran before that though. He got on the bus too late.

I campaigned against the horrible multi-national corporation inspired European Constitution, now Treaty of Lisbon. Of course only in Ireland will the people have the sovereign right to express their opinion. During the presidential election, I would always ask people who were going to vote for Bling-Bling Sarko, "Did you vote for the Euro-Constitution?" Mostly they said no, and emphatically. So I said, why are you going to vote for Sarko? It didn't have any effect.

So many come up to me now and tell me I was right.

Sarkozy has been a member of various rightwing governments since he was Budget Director for Balladur at the beginning of the 90's. That is when French deficits and debt skyrocketed. When he was Minister of Finance in the last Chirac government, the deficit was three times what it was under Jospin. He is definitely a Bush spend and not tax.

If he had been president in 2003, France would be in Iraq. Nothing in his career inspires confidence.

Tags: | bling-bling |
 
Unregistered User

Tue, May 20th 2008, 16:03

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
member deleted, I am afraid that I have to agree with you

I also understand that Sarko irritates our german friends, there is a concurrence in EU : who is leading the EU policies,

I am also afraid to advocate that I support him there :

Did France oppose a Veto to Germany when it was question of a german-skandinavian union ? not we just sat and had nothing to revendicate

yeah, Kadhafi, If it was the real expression of a french wish, this bandit would had never stepped into France, do I have to recall Germany's trade ties with Iran, and or her attemps to bully our trades with Lybia to replace our propositions by hers of "alternative energy", yeah, I wonder why !

France's grandeur through Nato, ridiculous !

that 's all your retained from your reading of anglo-saxon readings

France has no more volition of being imperialist, neither langweilig nach einem vorbei grandeur, just that we still are touchy when it comes to our independance of thought or manoeuvers, now France is fully aware that she can't anymore support an independant army, because of its high costs, so being fully with Nato makes her spare some kind of valuable bling-bling euros

Did Any other EU country had another agenda ?

yeah, Nato is convenient, it spares a lot of money to my EU fellows
 
Donald  Stadler

Tue, May 20th 2008, 21:26

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"” Well, in the sense that he is an empty-suit, he is.

He inclines towards American neocons, even though they are on the decline "

That rather argues the opposite. An 'empty suit' is someone who goes with the latest trends and parrots the conventional wisdom. Sarko is behaving the opposite if he really 'inclines toward American neocons'. Actually I don't believe he does entirely, but the fact that Sarko is willing to make up his mind independently of what all the current *wise men* parroting the conventional wisdom du jour think argues that he is actually the opposite of an 'empty suit'.
 
ilyas m mohsin

Fri, May 23rd 2008, 09:20

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
franchie has made a very pertinet point. By his analysis, France is unable to bear the cost of maintianing a big army. Hence it is time to hug the US/NATO. If this so, as it fully appears to be, then that underlines the dilemma of the organization. previously, a member-state joined as a matter of commitment to fight the Soviet threat during the cold war days. Now you opt for it since you do not want to spend on your defence.
The situation is further aggravted by various splits whcih are inherent in the EU. So viva la France!
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?