It's in the nature of breaking a taboo. When he confirmed on Wednesday March 11 that France was going to reintegrate into NATO's military command structure, Nicolas Sarkozy knew that he was announcing a measure that will count in his record: he's striking out at one of the symbols of national independence.

    France is one of the founding members of the Atlantic Alliance, the mutual defense pact concluded between the United States and its European allies in 1949. Then, it was a question of countering the Soviet threat, and the allies, under Washington's aegis, deployed a joint military organization, NATO. Because he deemed its integrated command to be too subject to American strategic interests solely, de Gaulle withdrew France from it in 1966. France remained a member of the alliance, of course. But, within the allies' club, it became sui-generis, an inside-outside member: hence the image - but also the reality - of a policy more independent of the United States constituting a consensus in Paris - on the right as well as the left. That's the pillar of national identity Mr. Sarkozy is attacking.

Also see below:     
Obama and the Dialogue With Europe    •

    He has, quite rightly, swept away a number of untruths about this matter. France's return to NATO's integrated military structure in no way makes it subject to Washington's desiderata. Decisions are made by consensus: an ally is free to refuse to participate in an operation. France remains an independent nuclear power: its atomic weapon is not affected by the matter. Afterwards, the president enumerated some common sense truths. The strategic landscape is no longer the one that obtained in 1966; the threats have changed. Since the middle of the 1990's, under President Jacques Chirac's impetus, France was de facto reintegrated into virtually all of NATO's military committees. It is one of the organization's most active members. In short, it was only logical to complete this development by returning to the integrated command: France will only exercise more influence there that way. We can follow the president down that path.

    On the other hand, we are frankly skeptical of this justification offered: Paris will abandon its unique status within NATO in order to promote European defense. A concept which is advancing by baby steps only because the other members of the European Union do not want such an entity to be constructed against Washington. Fully reintegrating with NATO, France will calm these fears and thus promote the advent of a European defense. The problem: that's only a bet since, today, not one of France's European partners shares its desire for military autonomy.

    --------

    Translation: Truthout French language editor Leslie Thatcher.

 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Obama and the Dialogue With Europe

Thursday 12 March 2009

by: Pierre Rousselin  |  Visit article original @ Le Figaro

    Dialogue is resuming between the United States and Europe. It's a new kind of exchange that the eight years of George W. Bush's presidency have not accustomed us to.

    Talking more is a good thing. That does not preclude differences in views. It's no help that President Obama is even more popular in Europe than at home; he was not elected to make us gifts.

    Emissaries follow one after the other and contacts multiply. The Americans listen to Europeans' complaint: we reproach them with having been the source of the global banking crisis and with not wanting to change the rules of capitalism so that this never happens again. Obama and his advisers retort that the emergency is elsewhere, that economic recovery must be launched first of all, before thinking about reform. Fortified by the $787 billion he's injecting into the American economy, the American president denounces the timidity of European recovery plans.

    The debate reveals ideological differences and contradictory interests. It's a necessary discussion that must take place quickly if the G20 summit, which takes place in London in three weeks, is to serve any purpose.

    To make progress, everyone must take their interlocutors' constraints into account. Obama's room for maneuver is narrow because he has not succeeded in rallying the Republicans to his cause. He will have the greatest difficulty getting agreement to a reduction in the United States' sovereignty over its own financial institutions. As for the Europeans, they cannot deepen their deficits with impunity. Angela Merkel, most specifically, is at the mercy of the September elections. Supported by Nicolas Sarkozy, she has to show that she is fighting for real reforms. As usual, Great Britain is leaning towards the Americans to preserve its interests as a strong financial center.

    The debate has been launched. May it progress sufficiently for the G20 to end on something other than a declaration of intentions with no concrete impact.

    On many other subjects - such as Afghanistan - where disagreement remains, the dialogue is also becoming enriched. The search for a credible strategy has been launched. We should be happy about that.

    All of this is taking place in a climate of seriousness and professionalism. The new style prevailing in Washington was visible the day of Gordon Brown's visit. The British press took umbrage at the reserve Barack Obama displayed. No hugs or pats on the back. The interview lasted 45 minutes, with no joint press conference. The American president obviously had a great deal of work to do that day.

    During George W. Bush's time, Gordon Brown, Washington's best ally, the first European to make the trip, would have been treated to a visit to the ranch, or at least a weekend at Camp David. With Obama, the work takes precedence. One is not there to joke around; one remains very concentrated, very professional.

    It's that America and Europe are in crisis. With Obama, dialogue will not be easy, but it will be diligent. At least we must hope so.

    --------

    Translation: Truthout French language editor Leslie Thatcher.