Sarkozy and America

By Spencer P. Boyer and Carolyn Kay White

French President Nicolas Sarkozy's visit to Washington this week showcased the new and improved Franco-American relationship, which began with Sarkozy's election in May. While Sarkozy has already stirred things up in France through his efforts to jumpstart a sluggish economy, scrap outdated labor practices, and restrict immigration, he has also challenged the status quo by making strong Franco-American relations a top priority again. Gone are the icy stares that characterized the relationship during the lead up to war in Iraq, with Sarkozy telling an enthusiastic joint session of Congress on Wednesday that "America can count on France" again. What's driving this new found friendship?

To begin to understand the warming of the Franco-American alliance, one has to start with Sarkozy the man. He defies easy categorization, with a political philosophy, policy agenda, and style that are altogether different than what the French public has come to expect. He's brash and hyperactive, often drawing comparisons to Bonaparte. He's more pragmatic than ideological, cares more about politics than policy, and is willing to take on France's powerful unions by pushing to overhaul the generous French welfare state. He's also an unabashed admirer of U.S. history and culture, adoring American celebrities such as Ernest Hemingway and Sylvester Stallone.

As opposed to the unrealistic goal of positioning France as a global counterweight to the United States, as his predecessor Jacques Chirac was prone to do, Sarkozy does not fear agreement with U.S. policy objectives - but not at the expense of France's national interests. While he has stated that "France will always be by [America's] side when they need her," he also believes that "friendship is ... accepting [of] the fact that friends can think differently."

His pragmatic world view sees the benefit of burying the hatchet with the United States and working cooperatively on international security issues that affect France, such as Iran's nuclear ambitions, Syrian meddling in Lebanon, and the war in Afghanistan. But Sarkozy has also made clear that the U.S. should not expect the French leader to be another Tony Blair, supporting U.S. foreign policy efforts without question. Sarkozy has been particularly hard on the United States for its failure to take the lead on climate change and for not getting a grip on the declining dollar.

On the U.S. side, President Bush is eager to end his presidency with some friends in the world. Scheduling visits with both Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the same week was no accident. Neither was holding a press conference in Mount Vernon to commemorate Franco-American ties dating back to Revolutionary times. This week was heavy on symbolism at many levels. Focusing on newly elected Western European leaders as a foothold for improved transatlantic relations is a logical step for the United States after the fallout from our decision to go to war with Iraq without the backing of most of our European allies.

Bush also needs to reconcile with France and the rest of "Old Europe" in order to increase U.S. chances of success on a range of international security challenges, especially as related to Iran, Afghanistan, and the struggle against global terrorist networks. It was music to Bush's ears to hear Sarkozy say this week that "France will remain engaged in Afghanistan for as long as it takes, because what is at stake in that country is the very future of our values and that of the Atlantic alliance."

In the end, this new Franco-American relationship makes imminent sense. There's far more to gain than to lose with closer cooperation. As long as the Bush administration actually takes to heart the notion that allies can respectfully disagree occasionally and still be allies, and the Sarkozy administration resists the historical urge to oppose a position solely because the United States is for it, we should be in good shape.

Spencer P. Boyer is Director of International Law and Diplomacy at the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based think tank

Carolyn Kay White is a Researcher at the Center for American Progress

Comments

[Spookcatcher]

Poor France, they are doomed. A Bushite Fascist is now in charge of their country. The Illegal Drug trade has got to be ecstatic, having this guy on top. Now the bush Family has another country to retreat to if/when things get investigated, that is if Clinton or Rudy is not elected.

[sedavi03]

I wholeheartedly agree with the blogger's excellent piece. The comments are reading way too much into the writer's statements. He never said that "union busting" is a good thing - he just said that Sarkozy's personality and philosophy makes him unafraid, as some French politicians have been, to take on unions, befriend the U.S., etc. (By the way, an enforced 35 hour work week and other practices that discourage/penalize work in France are damaging its economy. Also, Sarkozy is trying to harmonize pension practices so that they are fair all around, as opposed to favoring certain workers over others.) The writer also never indicated that France was wrong to oppose the war in Iraq. He just said that France had gotten used to opposing the U.S. in order to serve as a global counterweight, regardless of whether U.S. actions were right or wrong. Sarkozy is not perfect, but he's no poodle - just a politician who recognizes that it's in no one's interests for the US and France to have bad relationship.

[outnow]

Spencer,

"Reforming" social benefits will not necessarily make France more "competitive." Labor needs protection, too, at times, even permanently. If you agree that the New Deal should be reversed or that globalization is inevitable, then France should jump on board the train. But if you disagree with Thatcher and Reagan, as many of us do, and want a society where there is not a continuous, gigantic upward movement of wealth, then try the French socialism. Most of the French themselves agree.

Sarkozy cautioned that Wall Street was engaging in predatory and other unsound financial practices that were endangering worldwide financial stability, but that goes unreported.

Nice to have France on our side as a member of NATO. Perhaps, Sarkozy will maintain his independence and future administrations will listen to the less militaristic advice, too. By definition, Bush's unilateralism proceeded even against sound advice from allies. I feel that Bush did not want to split up the proceeds, i.e., the oil in Iraq, so if France did not help then France would not have an equity position.

Iran and Afghanistan are different issues. Each must be treated differently. Iraq was not part of the GWOT but a conquest to control access to oil, in the opinion of many. I hope that France maintains its own independent judgment. Sarkozy does not speak for all of France.

[littlehorn24]

I'm french and I'm going to re-state my case.

"and the Sarkozy administration resists the historical urge to oppose a position solely because the United States is for it"
This is a xenophobic rant against the people of France. One that you would expect from a neocon in 2003. "Ah those french people, they don't know what's right, they just oppose us all the time."

And now a little history. France has been cooperating with the US forever. I challenge you to quote even one event in which France acted directly against the wishes of the US, in the last 50 years.
Only once did Chirac really oppose the US, in 2003, and that was quickly dismissed once the war was launched, with a complete silence on the US policy towards Israel, Iraq, etc.
Note that i'm talking about France as a government. Not as a people.

As a people, the French are anti-imperialist, thus anti-neocon and anti-US government, for now. It all started with the ultimate desillusion that was World War I. It is then that pacifism and anti-imperialism took deep root in the national psyche.
The French people see through the lies of the neocons, and they know what war is really about. The American people may have known, but it doesn't anymore.

[OckhamsElectricRazor]

Bush has a new poodle!

[goldgoose]

When Sarkozy visited Congress, did they feed him 'freedom fries'?

[BillZBubb]

Wow, it isn't often I disagree so much with a piece at Huffpost! First, your paean to Sarkozy is way off base. You push his union busting as a good thing. Hmmm, a little right wing bias there.

Second, if you think by sucking up to George Bush, Sarkozy is becoming America's friend, you couldn't be more off the mark. If Sarkozy goes along with Bush's belligerence on Iran and the middle east, he is America's enemy. And we Americans will remember once the Bush contagion is swept into the dustbin of history.

Note to Sarkozy: You are five years too late on the poodle job, Tony Blair beat you to it. We don't need a French poodle now, the English kind was bad enough.

[peterg76]

Compared to the United States, just about any policy would count as "working cooperatively on international security".

And "the historical urge to oppose a position solely because the United States is for it" is merely the natural consequence of the US having taken so many short-sighted and stupid positions.

[RobertaInCT]

According to Sarkozy, "America can count on France" again. Let's see how much support America get from France after Bush bomb or invade Iran. Freedom fries anyone?

[lentinelia]

You describe Sarkozy's move to change pension plans in France as a plan to "scrap outdated labor practices".
You see these pensions as "outdated". Others see it differently. Others see it as a move to scapegoat and punish workers in favor of the more affluent. Train workers who have put in 35 years on the job are not the cause of France's economic troubles.

I would also take issue with your statement that Chirac was "positioning France as a global counterweight to the United States". What Chirac did was to refuse to go along with the bogus drum beat for war in Iraq. Many feel that Chirac was correct is so doing, and many wish that Tony Blair had had the courage and integrity to do likewise.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Methinks money changed hands, somewhere...