France is back!

Yesterday, Nicolas Sarkozy made his first speech on foreign policy since becoming the president of France. Taking a far more assertive approach than the lame and enfeebled stance of his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, M. Sarkozy’s ideas were certainly robust. For a long while French foreign policy under M. Chirac has tended towards ‘quietism’, anti-Americanism, and even blew hot-and-cold towards London. M. Chirac was the most outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, but much of this was undoubtedly hollow posturing instead of symbolising any principled stance.

But like the last French leader, Nicolas Sarkozy maintained in his speech that the Iraq war was a profound mistake. While this—perhaps accurate—view has not changed in France, Paris seems to now want a new strategy towards Iraq. The French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, a self-proclaimed interventionist and former director of Medecins Sans Frontieres, visited Iraq last week on a fact-finding mission to see if France could offer any assistance to the Iraqi people, who suffer almost constant terrorist attacks from Islamists, bandits and other murderous criminals. It is clear that the fully legitimate and democratically elected Iraqi government remains in a perilous position, and is maintained by the power of the United States. In order to defeat the criminals seeking to undermine Baghdad’s authority and threaten European and American security, this government must be enhanced, empowered and sustained. As such, it is right for France to offer support to Iraq, even if it maintains that the war was itself a mistake. French help in Iraq could undoubtedly assist with stabilising the chaotic country after the initial success of the American and British invasion in March 2003.

But Iraq was certainly not the most interesting or significant dimension of M. Sarkozy’s speech. First, he said that Iran must end its suspected nuclear weapons programmes and co-operate fully with the European Union and the United States. He also stated that a nuclear Iran was ‘unacceptable’ to Paris, and that Iranian non-compliance could result in airstrikes and bombings. This was described by François Heisbourg, an adviser to the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research, as a sea-change in the French attitude towards Tehran. As he argued: ‘This came out of the blue...To actually say that if diplomacy fails the choice will be to accept a nuclear Iran or bomb Iran, this is a diplomatic blockbuster.’ However, the president offered no further information as to whether France would explicitly endorse or assist in an attack should Iranian intransigence continue under the unruly regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Second, in Afghanistan, M. Sarkozy promised to beef-up the French military contingent. The Ministry of Defence today promised a further 150 troops, though like all French forces out on the Afghan frontier, they will not be allowed to join their other European comrades (Britons, Dutch and Danes), the Americans, and the Canadians, in any active warfighting. This is a problematic situation, for the application of France’s considerable military might could do much to help further degrade and crush the Taleban.

Third, M. Sarkozy took a far firmer line with China and Russia. He correctly identified that ‘Russia is imposing its return on the world scene by using its assets, notably oil and gas, with a certain brutality.’ He also said that powerful countries ‘should not be brutal.’ This is clearly a departure from the days of M. Chirac, who seemed to actively enjoy spending time with Russia’s authoritarian leader, Vladimir Putin. As for China, M. Sarkozy said that he thought Beijing should address its currency, which makes its exports too cheap, damaging the world trading system.

Fourth, regarding the United Nations, M. Sarkozy said: ‘France demands new permanent members—Germany, Japan, India, Brazil—and fair representation for Africa.’ He is right. We should support the extension of the United Nations Security Council’s permanent members, especially if they are conducive to European and Western attitudes, as are all countries mentioned previously. The United States should also support Germany, Japan, India and Brazil’s membership of the Security Council, not least because of the potential formation of a new alliance between India, Japan, America and Europe might help us to contain any aggressive and destabilising designs of China and Russia. Nonetheless, it is mandatory that countries like Japan and Germany unshackle themselves from their historical pasts if they are to assume ‘great power’ status. Both must raise defence spending, and build armed forces able to project power if not for their own sake, then certainly to support United Nations-backed peace support missions.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the new French president said that France must take a more active role in encouraging other European Union Member States to help Britain and France make the European Union a credible and effective global power. As he put it: ‘Europe must progressively affirm itself as a first-rank player for peace and security, in co-operation with the United Nations, the Atlantic Alliance and the African Union.’ He said that European integration would remain at the heart of French policy, and that Europe is stronger with active French participation, which in turn is good for France. While the French president’s proposals were sketchy, he suggested that Europeans needed to strengthen and integrate their armed forces and power projection capabilities, and that they must come to see threats to their security through the same lens. This tallies with statements made by David Miliband, appointed British foreign minister by the new prime minister, Gordon Brown, last month, who said that making the European Union a stronger power in the world was now one of the Foreign Office’s three primary missions. Hopefully, Anglo-French relations under Mr. Brown and M. Sarkozy, and Mr. Miliband and M. Kouchner, will be more inspiring and productive than under their predecessors, which at times were unhelpful and riddled with spite and acrimony.

Nicolas Sarkozy also appeared to change his tune on Turkey, saying that he would not block further European Union discussions with Ankara, provided that they did not assume Turkey’s accession was presupposed. This is yet another step in the right direction. While we should be careful of letting Turkey into the European Union prematurely, the possibility should not be altogether ruled out. This could enhance the Islamist movement in the country, which may provoke the Turkish armed forces into domestic intervention.

In all, the new French president’s speech presents a far more active and constructive role for France in both the European Union and on the world scene. This is a clear departure from the lost years of Jacques Chirac. It also offers potential for closer Anglo-French relations, which are critical if the vision of a strong, credible and capable European Union is to be realised. France is back! Britain—and other European Union Member States—should seize the opportunity and work with it.