Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

France Wants to Join NATO

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • France Wants to Join NATO

    France Wants to Join NATO to Ease the Way for European Defense

    Soeren Kern | 23 Apr 2008
    World Politics Review Exclusive

    French President Nicolas Sarkozy says he will decide by late 2008 or early 2009 whether France will fully rejoin the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It is one of the more important issues left unresolved at the recently concluded Bucharest Summit, where Sarkozy proclaimed: "I reaffirm here France's determination to pursue the process of renovating its relations with NATO."

    Gen. Charles de Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's military structure in 1966 in protest over American dominance of the Atlantic Alliance. And more than 40 years later, the issue of American influence over European security remains a fundamental stumbling block to improved Franco-U.S. relations.

    But France has been toying with the idea of rejoining NATO for more than a decade. Indeed, in 1995, Sarkozy's predecessor, the neo-Gaullist Jacques Chirac, told U.S. President Bill Clinton of his desire to bring France back into the alliance command structure. But the effort was abandoned when the Clinton Administration rejected French conditions for full reintegration, and when Chirac lost his governing majority in snap parliamentary elections in 1997.

    Sarkozy, who has been called "an American neo-conservative with a French passport" because of his desire to mend relations with the United States, first announced the possibility of a French rapprochement with NATO in a September 2007 interview with the New York Times. But even if Sarkozy has pro-American leanings, he also is thoroughly Europe-centric in his worldview; correspondingly, he has spelled out French conditions for rejoining NATO that are very similar to those of Chirac: American acceptance of an independent European defense capability and a leading French role in NATO's command structures.

    Sarkozy reiterated his demands in November, when, in an address to the U.S. Congress, he called on "the Alliance to evolve concurrently with the development and strengthening of a European defense." France's Minister for Europe, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, echoed this by saying: "We want to make openings with regard to NATO. . . . But let's be clear: We are ready to make these openings only if they allow the strengthening of a real European security and defense policy."

    But French calls for an autonomous European military capability have been greeted with skepticism by several European countries that are reluctant to undermine the existing security links with the United States established through NATO. Indeed, some of the more U.S.-leaning European states suspect that France's renewed interest in rejoining NATO is in fact a Trojan horse designed, ultimately, to destroy the Atlantic Alliance from within.

    Sarkozy, therefore, seems to have concluded that if he wants to advance the cause of autonomous European defense, he will first have to placate euroskeptics on both sides of the Atlantic by proving his commitment to NATO. But France is unlikely to rejoin NATO if it does not promote European integration. Indeed, the President of the EU Military Committee, French Gen. Henri Bentégeat, has said: "I think that if France normalizes its relations with NATO, European defense projects will become easier to progress." Says Sarkozy: "The more we are friends with the Americans, the more we can be independent."

    Nowhere are French proposals for an autonomous European defense capability more controversial than in euroskeptic Britain, whose government is seeking ratification of the highly unpopular Lisbon Treaty (the repackaged European Constitution) this summer. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who had earlier promised to hold a popular referendum on the treaty, has now decided it will be easier to obtain a "yes" vote by sidelining British voters altogether and instead submitting the document directly to Parliament for ratification.

    With this in mind, Brown presumably advised Sarkozy during his first official visit to Britain on March 26-27 to frame his proposals for European defense in such a way as to avoid endangering the Lisbon Treaty ratification process. Indeed, Jouyet, the French Minister for Europe, recently said that: "We will obviously take care not to jeopardize the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty, because we know that in certain countries these issues are sensitive."

    This probably explains why discussion of the symbolically important issue of French reintegration into NATO has been postponed to a meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the level of foreign ministers in December 2008, or even perhaps to NATO's 60th anniversary summit in April 2009.

    An EU Army to Rival NATO?

    France will assume the six-month rotating presidency of the European Union on July 1, 2008. And Sarkozy has already made it clear that the centerpiece of his (exceptionally ambitious) agenda will be the full development of an autonomous European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP).

    The full extent of Sarkozy's vision for European defense will be published in the forthcoming "White Book" on French defense sector reform. But according to senior aides, Sarkozy's central proposal for the French presidency of the EU revolves around using provisions in the Lisbon Treaty that call for "permanent structured cooperation" to create what many believe in effect will become a common EU army.

    In practice, the French plan is to proceed around an inner core of the biggest European countries ("strengthened cooperation" in eurospeak) called the G-6: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain. (Other countries can join this initial group at any time.) France wants each G-6 country 1) to contribute 10,000 troops to a 60,000-strong "common intervention force" and 2) to commit to spending a minimum of 2 percent of GDP on defense.

    France also wants the EU to have its own independent military planning capability (with its headquarters in Brussels). Says Europe Minister Jouyet: "We propose that Europe acquires the operational means for intervention with a planning center in Brussels." This has been echoed by French Defense Minister Hervé Morin: "An own planning staff in Brussels forms part of our ideas."

    Another French proposal involves the creation of common EU arms market and the "definition of a common European disarmament and arms control policy." Says Jouyet: "We are ready for an internal market and an arms agency at the European level which will allow us to reinforce our industrial bases." Indeed, the European Commission recently proposed two new directives: one on defense procurement and another on intra-EU transfers of defense products.

    France is also expected to proceed with a plan that would create a "common arms export policy" based on a proposal recently passed by the European Parliament. Furthermore, France wants to harmonize military training in Europe, as well as to "Europeanize" the foreign military bases of EU member states.

    For the United States (and other pro-NATO allies), Sarkozy's plans pose a dilemma. On the one hand, the Americans want the Europeans to assume more of the burden for transatlantic defense. On the other hand, they want the Europeans to do this in a way that does not undermine NATO. And 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.

    For example, the 60,000-strong EU force would draw on the very same troops that are currently committed to 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 would almost certainly divert manpower away from the NATO mission in Afghanistan. And nearly all observers agree that the future of the Atlantic Alliance hinges on success or failure in Afghanistan.

    Several European countries, especially Britain, have also resisted the creation of an autonomous EU military planning cell because of fears that it will duplicate the existing operational planning center at NATO known as SHAPE. And some EU countries are concerned that the creation of an internal EU arms market will make it more difficult for them to reach bilateral agreements with third countries (such as the United States) in relation to the licensing of exports of military equipment.

    In an effort to alleviate some of these concerns, NATO in March 2003 reached a series of agreements with the EU known as the Berlin Plus arrangements. These guarantee that NATO not only maintains the right of first refusal to conduct crisis management operations (if the EU wishes to use NATO resources, it may only act independently in an international crisis if NATO chooses not to), but that all members have an effective veto by virtue of the fact that the EU may only draw on NATO assets if the whole alliance approves.

    But the Berlin Plus agreements (and thus the whole debate over the EU's institutional relationship with NATO) will be reopened as a quid pro quo for France rejoining NATO. And if Sarkozy succeeds in creating an independent EU military, it will be at the expense of NATO, which in turn will dilute American influence over European security policy.

    French Pro-Americanism Unlikely to Outlast Sarkozy

    Although some analysts believe the pro-American Sarkozy is filling the shoes vacated by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, most of the French political class does not share their president's enthusiasm for things American. Indeed, their goal for more than 60 years has been to reduce American influence in Europe. Thus it seems doubtful that Sarkozy's overtures to the United States will outlast his own administration.

    This was foreshadowed on April 8, when Sarkozy faced down a vote of no confidence because of his plans to deploy a battalion of 800 French troops to Afghanistan. (France already has 1,600 soldiers in Afghanistan, mostly around the capital, Kabul.) French leftists accused Sarkozy of a dangerous "Atlanticist drift" that risked turning France into Bush's lackey. The leader of the "moderate" opposition Socialists, François Hollande, said Sarkozy decided to send French troops to Afghanistan "under pressure from the Americans" and that France risked losing its independence on the world stage.

    For most of the French ruling elite (the anti-American Left and the nationalist Right), the United States is considered to be the main problem in international affairs because of its reluctance to share its power. The only solution, in their view, is a French-led EU superstate that can counterbalance America on the global stage. And a unified EU foreign and defense policy that is completely independent of NATO (i.e., the United States) is essential to achieve equal status. Until then, anti-Americanism will continue to be the preferred means to accelerate the process of loosening the transatlantic link.

    Sarkozy may be sincere in his desire to rejoin NATO. But by conditioning such a move on support for an independent EU defense capability, he is saying that to be more European tomorrow, he has to be more Atlantic today.

    Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for transatlantic relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos/Strategic Studies Group.

    World Politics Review | France Wants to Join NATO to Ease the Way for European Defense
    What does this mean for NATO?

    How will it change the outlook and policies?


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  • #2
    Parihaka runs round in circles loudly proclaiming sacrebleu whilst waving une baguette
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • #3
      Braindead watches Parihaka with a proud smile and is passing him bottle of Evian. And is waiting for Gunnut to turn up.
      If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

      Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by braindead View Post
        Braindead watches Parihaka with a proud smile and is passing him bottle of Evian. And is waiting for Gunnut to turn up.
        Your wish is my command.

        I'm sure everyone here is disappointed because I'm at work and can't reach my bag of French jokes stored on my computer at home.
        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

        Comment


        • #5
          Future of NATO thread

          Pretty good kick-around there already on this.
          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

          Comment


          • #6
            Sarkozy is no more friend of the US than Chirac (remember "Chirac l'Américain" ? it was in 1995:P)

            You need to be blind and deaf if you think Sarkozy is different from our previous presidents, he has the same purposes, a strengthened European Union autonomous vis a vis America and a long term goal: a Europan power at parity with the US. And I guess he's more pro-Europe than his predecessor because he's part of another generation, one that has been living with the European construction and with no memory of what was Europe before 1950.

            Along with France and Germany, Poland just said it was in favor of a stronger Europe within NATO. It will take time but the process is definitively on the right track.
            Last edited by Oscar; 26 Apr 08,, 13:51.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Oscar View Post
              Sarkozy is no more friend of the US than Chirac (remember "Chirac l'Américain" ? it was in 1995:P)

              You need to be blind and deaf if you think Sarkozy is different from our previous presidents, he has the same purposes, a strengthened European Union autonomous vis a vis America and a long term goal: a Europan power at parity with the US. And I guess he's more pro-Europe than his predecessor because he's part of another generation, one that has been living with the European construction and with no memory of what was Europe before 1950.

              Along with France and Germany, Poland just said it was in favor of a stronger Europe within NATO. It will take time but the process is definitively on the right track.
              I don't know why it is an issue. Who doesn't want a stronger Europe? Americans want one. I think we'd rather the French work with us than attempt to grandstand when they see an opportunity but myself i look on that as the nature of France not a hostile France. I don't for a second believe France is hostile to the US in regard to real security threats we share to many values and too long a history of friendship. I remember the headline of La Monde on 9/12. It would seem France had some good advice about Iraq in hindsight imo. Plus the Russian Bear stirs in the east;)
              Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
              ~Ronald Reagan

              Comment


              • #8
                I'll believe this when I see it.

                And I can't believe that the French would just come back without asking for something (there is never a free lunch in international relations)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ba1025 View Post
                  I don't know why it is an issue. Who doesn't want a stronger Europe? Americans want one. I think we'd rather the French work with us than attempt to grandstand when they see an opportunity but myself i look on that as the nature of France not a hostile France. I don't for a second believe France is hostile to the US in regard to real security threats we share to many values and too long a history of friendship. I remember the headline of La Monde on 9/12. It would seem France had some good advice about Iraq in hindsight imo. Plus the Russian Bear stirs in the east;)
                  Who doesn't want a stronger Europe? well.....people stuck in 1945 for one, paranoids who see a united Europe as a potential "challenge" for the American hegemon, looneys who think the EU is the new Nazi Germany, etc...

                  You won't find any Frenchman who wants the breakup of the Atlantic Alliance but strange as it might seem for a nation as genetically optimistic as the Americans I found a very somber view of Europe on the other side of the Atlantic...maybe because it suits them:)...after all divide and rule...
                  Last edited by Oscar; 26 Apr 08,, 18:51.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Oscar View Post
                    Who doesn't want a stronger Europe? well.....people stuck in 1945 for one, paranoids who see a united Europe as a potential "challenge" for the American hegemon, looneys who think the EU is the new Nazi Germany, etc...

                    You won't find any Frenchman who wants the breakup of the Atlantic Alliance but strange as it might seem for a nation as genetically optimistic as the Americans I found a very somber view of Europe on the other side of the Atlantic...maybe because it suits them:)...after all divide and rule...
                    Or perhaps as has been pointed out to you ad infinitum, continental Europe has a consistent history of genocide and mass murder second to none.
                    Only the presence of large numbers of non-European troops stationed within your borders for the last sixty years has stopped that constant cycle.
                    Yes Europe is all grown up, yes the EU and World Bank etc etc will help curb your excesses, but does the rest of the world (most of which you have made pretty bloody war and invasion against over the last 500 years) trust you yet?
                    Nope.
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                      Or perhaps as has been pointed out to you ad infinitum, continental Europe has a consistent history of genocide and mass murder second to none.
                      Only the presence of large numbers of non-European troops stationed within your borders for the last sixty years has stopped that constant cycle.
                      Yes Europe is all grown up, yes the EU and World Bank etc etc will help curb your excesses, but does the rest of the world (most of which you have made pretty bloody war and invasion against over the last 500 years) trust you yet?
                      Nope.
                      That's why we don't want NATO to disappear(again)...the article was not about the end of this organisation; the French and increasingly the other Europeans want a Eurogroup inside NATO: that's the long term goal and some people respond to that by saying it is already too dangerous. (Because we are genocidaires in waiting I guess)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        And I don't undestand how the World Bank would prevent a genocide?

                        btw the EU IS NOT an international body like any other it has the attributes of a sovereign country(currency, borders, justice, diplomacy.....and why not an integrated military inside NATO?)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Oscar View Post
                          that's the long term goal and some people respond to that by saying it is already too dangerous. (Because we are genocidaires in waiting I guess)
                          As General Powell had said, we need a brigade, not another HQ.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Oscar View Post
                            And I don't undestand how the World Bank would prevent a genocide?
                            Because the flow of capital dictates the ability of a country or region to make war. By internationalising economies as much as possible, it becomes more difficult for countries within those systems to take unilateral steps. Examine the countries currently regarded as the greatest threats at the moment, and examine how closely integrated they are into the world economy. The World Bank/IMF has far more international clout than the UN.
                            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                            Leibniz

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                              As General Powell had said, we need a brigade, not another HQ.
                              We know about the constraints but the US and Canada won't need the approval anymore of all European countries to make a move. That's a progress. It will be up to the European Parliament.
                              Last edited by Oscar; 26 Apr 08,, 22:13.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X