International Issues: French-American relations under the Fifth Republic
result of a friendship dating back over two hundred years, the Franco-American relations are under the seal of a covenant and a constant cooperation between the two nations.
Politically and militarily, the French-American relations are based on solid foundations. The United States could avail themselves of French support in the war of independence. France, meanwhile, was able to emerge victorious from two world wars, partly thanks to U.S. intervention in 1917 to the First World War and especially landed in 1944 to the Second World War. These reciprocal alliances in these tragic circumstances, have thus linked the destinies of both countries. It should specify the main actors of foreign policy, namely the heads of state, U.S. Secretary of State, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, whose role is deleted under the Fifth Republic, the French Parliament and U.S. Congress.
On the economic and commercial the United States are essential partners, given their power. The Marshall Plan of postwar assistance is consistent for reconstructing a Europe scarred and battered. However, it appears that France is the second recipient of this aid after the United Kingdom.
However, under the Fifth Republic, the French-American relations are no less complex. On the one hand, the return of General de Gaulle in French political life coincided with the advent of the scheme in January 1959. However, the Gaullist conceptions accommodate themselves little with American leadership. On the other hand, the regime bears the mark of the first president of both institutions and in terms of diplomacy and military choices. It turns out that de Gaulle's successors will extend broadly to foreign policy choices, with varying degrees of inflection. Thus the French and American interests clash due to the cultural, diplomatic, political, economic and trade, making their relationships falter or oscillate.
the crises they have deep roots? How the two allies and partners manage to overcome them? To answer these questions it is necessary to elucidate constants historical Franco-American relations, showing that they oscillate between cooperation and differentiation (I). It is, finally, to consider the implications of this complex relationship in the French-American pair since the redefinition of U.S. policy in 2001 and particularly following the U.S. presence in Iraq after 2003 (II).
relations between France and the United States vary based on common interests and divergent (I). On the one hand, the continuing contradictions generate crises that must explain the reasons (A). On the other hand, the common interests of both partners persist throughout the Fifth Republic, justifying the alliance and cooperation (B).
Differences constants generate crises that must explain the causes (A).
Unlike the Fourth Republic, which was decidedly pro-American, the Fifth Republic is characterized by a more mixed new turn in US-French relations. France is going through a difficult period with particular decolonization of Algeria while the United States are the champions of anti-colonialism. American hegemony superimposed on the relative weakening of France on the internationally, is resented and creates anti-American reaction. It should be recalled that both nations have ambitions universal cultural confrontation appears inevitable. In this context, the return of General de Gaulle in French political life is a turning point, especially since his historic stature gives it a special legitimacy. Success
military, the Suez expedition in 1956 ended in a diplomatic humiliation of France, who found himself relegated to average power. So the rejection of this stance that is causing tensions with the United States. Under Article 5 of the Constitution of 4 October 1958, the President is the "guarantor of national independence." As such, General de Gaulle intends to promote the independence of France and give it a true greatness in the comity of nations, as he indicates in his memoirs of war: "All my life I've made some idea of France. [...] In my view, France can not be France without greatness. "
To do this, he denounced the "sharing of Yalta" and breaking the world into two blocs. This policy of independence is reflected on one side by a critique of the Vietnam War the discourse of Phnom Penh in 1966, travel to the USSR and China and the other by nuclear ambitions. De Gaulle asked the President Eisenhower's nuclear secrets to share and integrate France into a tripartite leadership of the Atlantic Alliance. The plea in bar as well as control of nuclear weapons in 1960, ended with the release of the integrated command of NATO in his letter of March 7, 1966 to President Johnson that marks the culmination of bilateral tensions. Therefore, U.S. troops can no longer park in France and the NATO Headquarters in Brussels is transferred. In fact, designs American and French strategic diverge since the adoption of the doctrine of reprisals Graduated defense secretary under Kennedy, MacNamara, which opposes that of massive retaliation General de Gaulle. These initiatives are not well received across the Atlantic. The recognition of China in 1964, seems like a betrayal-a-vis Taiwan's former ally against the Japanese and more generally as a nuisance to Western interests. Even under the chairmanship Pompidou renewed tensions resurfaced. On this occasion, the Secretary of State Henry Kissinger addresses the France of "Rebellious child of Europe".
Tensions in the Middle East give rise to different readings. While U.S. support for Israel remains constant, France does not hesitate to criticize Israel. Admittedly, the Arab policy of France, for historical reasons but also economic, does not align U.S. policy.
An economic and commercial rivalry between the two countries. Thanks to the Bretton Woods monetary policy to absorb U.S. trade deficits. General de Gaulle denounced this system and wants a return to the system gold standard.
After the collapse of the Soviet empire, the Treaty of Maastricht 7 February 1992, marks an important step in building a political Europe. France, motor of European construction, is in favor of a Common European Security Policy. In 1998, during the summit in St. Malo, French and British are considering a real European defense outside of NATO. It must be said that in the meantime, Europe suffers a humiliation by being unable to manage her own crises of former Yugoslavia. In 1999, the euro became legal tender notes and coins and are put into circulation in 2002. Under these conditions, the United States understands that the European construction that promotes France takes place against unilateralism. They are opposed, therefore, that Europe policy making clear that the status quo should be maintained at about NATO. Furthermore, with the demise of the Soviet threat, Europe is no longer the center of gravity of American foreign policy that looks increasingly to Asia including the Middle East.
From the Clinton presidency, the temptation of unilateralism crowd although it was later, under the presidency of George W. Bush it takes its full measure. Differentiation occurs in the theater of international crises. For example, France is opposed to the embargo in Iraq, responsible, according to Amnesty International, death of 500,000 children.
also increasing commercial rivalry. Sometimes regarded as the soul of the people, culture is not left behind in the competition between the two rivals. Initiated during the Uruguay Round, the debate on liberalization of services and therefore cultural services, resurfaced in 1998 as part of the OECD, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). Industry American cultural account for a large share of U.S. exports. Leader in many European countries, while France defends cultural exception. Defensive concept related to protectionism, cultural exception is replaced by cultural diversity in the negotiations at the WTO in Seattle in 1999.
However, these recurrent friction never reach the break between the two partners. Indeed, the common interests of both allies persist throughout the Fifth Republic. Basically, France and the U.S. share common democratic values.
Remain interests common and a long friendship throughout the Fifth Republic (B).
Firstly, the context of the Cold War lends itself to mutual interests in security. For the U.S., it is to limit the spread of communism. For France, what is at stake is security. The North Atlantic Treaty of 4 April 1949, sealed the alliance, especially between the two countries. In principle, neither country has any interest in the question. At the foundation of both nations, there is democracy and human rights, including freedom including Opinion and private property (Art. 17 of the declaration of 26 August 1789). Added to this system of values, historical ties of solidarity at the global tragedies. Recall that the U.S. is one of the great powers with which France has never had any armed confrontation. These circumstances may explain in part the continued support of France to U.S. policy on major strategic issues. When Khrushchev tried to unilaterally change the status of Berlin in 1958, General de Gaulle is supporting the United States. Cohesion is also unwavering in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Relative relaxation marks the mandate pompidolien. Information exchanges are possible in the nuclear field. Solidarity is strengthened under the presidency of Valery Giscard d'Estaing. Aware of the 1980s, when the Euro-missiles crisis, President Mitterrand said at the wave of pacifism in Western Europe that "peace is in the West and the missiles are in the East." In the end, the U.S. Pershing may offset the Soviet SS-20.
Second, economic interests are shared to the extent that the rehabilitation and development of Europe is both an asset to reduce the spread of communism and a way to get opportunities and a contrario or imported products.
Finally, European integration is a project supported by the United States insofar as it reinforces the European economies and contributes to a unit that avoids war between European countries. Costly and repeated interventions of the United States because of conflicts in Europe are an explanation for this desire to promote unity. It will, further refinement of this U.S. support for the European project and to expose the ambivalence. After the collapse
of the Soviet empire, the polarization of the world has an end but new threats arise. France moves while the United States to face. This "new world order" should now allow the United States and Europe to solve, together, the political and economic problems. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, several joint military operations will be exercised. The End of History announced by Fukuyama, is not for the immediate future. First, the Gulf War which broke out in 1991, illustrates the similarities between the two diplomats in spite of ideological differences between a President Socialists on one side and a Republican President to another. The operation is a success that both countries welcome. Then, the crises in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo call for military cooperation between the two partners.
Gaullist legacy left to his successors, is thus likely to impose a U.S. ally who cooperate but who can also assert its difference. This French tradition thus leads to outright opposition after the inauguration of the Bush administration.
foreign policy of the Bush administration has been incompatible with the French view, where an acute crisis, the new French diplomacy could ease (II).
diplomatic tensions, political and economic pitted the two states (A).
First, since the military intervention in Iraq, the Franco-American relations are strained.
Upon arrival, the Bush administration, composed of neoconservatives, marks a shift towards the old continent. Stability in the Middle East and especially the ouster of Saddam Hussein are the targets. The attacks of September 11, 2001 while serving as surety for the U.S. implement the neoconservative thesis. In misfortune, France is, of course solidarity with the American people. President Chirac said that evening: "No country in the world has been the target of terrorist attacks of such magnitude or of such violence. I want to reiterate to the American people the solidarity of all French people in this tragic ordeal. "On September 12, 2001, France supported the resolution 1368 condemning terrorism. The solidarity clause in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty is invoked in the framework of NATO.
In general, the strong emotion aroused by the attacks will allow the U.S. to act without any real guarantee of the First United Nations first in Afghanistan. U.S. diplomacy takes accents crusade "axis of evil" crusade against terrorism "(a phrase quickly rejected because of its historical and emotional echo in the region). The book of Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations, summarizes the neoconservative vision and concern by suggesting that explicit confrontation between Western world and Muslim world. France refuses to enroll in this design that led to the invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003 without UN guarantee. Weapons of mass destruction, supposedly hidden, served as pretext for war and tension between the two states reached its climax when France threatened to use its veto. For the first time, this crisis leads to an opposition front on a major issue. The U.S. Secretary of State and President Bush threaten France adverse implications for their bilateral relations. This episode will give rise to a wave of anti-Americanism on one side and the other Francophobia. It must be said that this intervention without UN approval is a strong signal the international community and allies reluctant to follow, namely that the U.S. may act alone and preemptively if they feel their security is threatened. The potentiality of the French veto led the British and American allies to justify the use of force by other channels that Kofi Annan disagrees. They are based on resolution 1441, hotly debated and recognizing that Iraq is in material breach of its obligations itself of resolution 687 whose non-compliance reactive resolution 678 which authorizes the use of force " to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore peace and security in the region. " France, which disagrees with this legal argument of circumstance, is classified by the Americans in the class of old Europe that would otherwise be Venus. What is implied here by Robert Kagan, is that it is peace through weakness while America is from Mars, with an ambition of power to enforce justice. With the Iraq crisis, has thus drawn a real break.
Second, this approach political and trade tensions.
Since the Earth Summit in Rio, a planetary awareness, which has promoted the concept of sustainable development emerges. France is particularly sensitive to these issues since it has revised its constitution, incorporating the Environmental Charter in 2004. But the United States, the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol despite the fact that global warming is a hot topic.
Other discrepancies stem from the difference model of society. France is strictly secular, while the reference God is a recurring theme in American politics. The welfare state remains a great French when the U.S. company pays in liberalism uninhibited.
Despite this liberal domestically, protectionist reactions may occur on the external front. So, President Bush's son has taken unilateral decisions to limit steel imports and increase agricultural subsidies. After the demise of the Soviet empire in 1991, the United States increasingly perceive the EU as a rival. To this end, the trade disputes between the United States and the EU are legion. However, these disputes are to a large extent on agricultural products, namely bananas, beef hormones, GMOs without omitting agricultural subsidies. It turns out that France is a member state for whom agriculture is a fundamental element. In this case, interest can only compete.
Despite this backdrop of high tension, the points of agreement persists. Solidarity against terrorism is not an issue. Despite the Iraqi crisis, we can see the French presence in Afghanistan with a thousand men for Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF of Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The agreement is reflected by the joint vote of resolutions 1559, 1664 and 1757 of the Security Council on Lebanon.
more consensual choices of the new diplomacy is likely to reduce tensions without leading to a systematic alignment of the U.S. (B). The election of the President of the Republic in 2007 raised great expectations across the Atlantic, the U.S. hopes that a bilateral reconciliation begins.
A more Atlanticist orientation of French diplomacy seems to be emerging.
President Sarkozy makes no secret of his admiration for the system values underpinning American society. The President continued the cooperation begun by his predecessor and engage in assertive diplomacy alongside the United States on issues of Lebanon and Syria. At European level, it outlines a rapprochement with the Atlanticist "new Europe".
Concerning the Middle East, President bends the policy of the Quai d'Orsay in a less pro-Arab and pro-Israel in blaming the armed conflict with Hezbollah in 2006. By suggesting to put the party on the list of terrorist organizations and supporting Israel's right to defend itself, France aligned with the United States. Comments by Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, on the firmness needed against Tehran in this direction.
But it should be noted persistent disagreements. Certainly, in this context, France will reappear as a loyal ally. However, if the new French diplomacy is certainly an ally, it is not endorsed. Indeed, the post-Gaullist alliance, not without some wear trends in the history of both nations, that a partnership often tinged with conflict of interest or disagreement. The tone Diplomatic less incisive is actually more nuanced. The President recognizes the premiere of Israeli security but finds its disproportionate response in Lebanon. Firmness is needed vis-à-vis Iran's civilian nuclear power but is a right which must be recognized. In defense, balancing advocated by France is more for the CFSP and NATO. The refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol raises the disapproval of the new host of the Elysee, particularly given a context within the "Grenelle of the environment." Finally, the political, the intervention in Iraq is not condoned.
turbulent relationship, the relationship between France and the United States nevertheless remains solid on the key issues. The severe crisis experienced during the war in Iraq, dissipates gradually with a new French diplomacy. Recomposition of a new Franco-American relations could lead to a transition post-Gaullist, more likely to dock with the guidelines of the Atlantic. However, it could only be a facade to better defend the strategic interests of France and Europe. In this perspective, the future of relations between the two countries would fit more in continuity than rupture.
0 comments:
Post a Comment