Royal, Europe and US: A Foreign Policy Perspective
Rizwan Ghani
April 28, 2007
Reportedly, Royal accused Sarkozy, her conservative opponent for apologizing to President Bush for France’s decision not to back US (militarily) in Iraq war. Sarkozy campaign denied the words as “lies”. It shows extent of difference in foreign policy in French politics like rest of the world.
In Britain, foreign policy experts are trying to figure out a way for their leaders to deal with France under Royal. Blair or Brown it is going to be the same foreign policy- pro White House- until a Democrat enters White House or Labor decides to call early polls.
In her speech after the knock out round, Royal spelled out landmarks that will determine country’s foreign policy agenda during her time in office. There was a part of her address though meant for local audience had international appeal.
France will be free, not locked in hands of few with power; reforms will be without brutalization, the human values survive over stock values. France will guarantee public freedom, liberty without control and respect human values. France will be an impartial state.
While addressing the international audience she talked of defending French interests in Europe and rest of the world. She envisioned Europe socially and economically capable to work in multi-polar world. She talked of EU Treaty and EU Constitution and a Europe that will be at service of peace.
She expressed faith in culture of peace, equality of life with planet and respecting universal values. She also showed support for human rights, women rights and citizen rights.
The last part of her speech aimed at French public had a universal appeal, also. “Come with me and be strong with our beautiful nation. Gather together, give smile to our country away from depression and decline”.
By talking of viable Europe in multi-polar world, respecting human values, impartial state she has revived the issues that divide Europe and America and divisions within Europe.
In the same context American and its relationship with international organizations and role of international organizations in current geo-political environment and post Iraq withdrawal environment with respect to human rights and legitimacy of war against terrorism. Royal by mentioning universal values, and rights wanted the world to know what France would stand for if she will be in the office.
If Royal will succeed to practice what she said in her speech relations between two countries can only improve if Britain reviews and restores country’s besieged human rights and civil liberties in accordance to national constitution, EU treaty and international laws.
Ironically, Britain will have either to accept EU human rights and civil liberties standards and review its foreign policy to befriend rest of Europe including France or face another decade of “isolation” or love hate relationship with Europe. Some may argue that there is nothing new to it Britain and Europe have always defined themselves differently.
It is strong assertion but Britain may have to review its foreign policy to be part of Europe on two counts lest it wants to forego the geo-political and economic advantages: Growing economic influence of Russia and China in Europe, energy interests and multi-polar world in Post US withdrawal Iraq scenario with Democrats in the Oval Office.
Energy deal between Russia and EU as a block will always be secure and better than bilateral negotiation. Britain cannot afford to ignore this reality.
ME’s look east policy starting at bilateral level with Russia, China and European states will ultimately converge on EU platform. Britain as part of the EU block may benefit from ME look east policy but will be denied same respect at bilateral level with oil rich Gulf States and rest of the Muslim world due to its Iraq policy.
There can be counter arguments to all this. True. But, experts see a integrating not dividing Europe in coming days. In addition, with international politics edging towards multi-polar world, unlike undecided Britain, Royal has made her move and preempted integration to secure country’s economic and political interests basing on emerging geo-political realities.
In addition to using EU as a platform to access international markets, she has kept the bilateral option of engaging international community on case-to-case basis. By adopting this approach, Royal has additionally kept the doors open for America, also. With any favorable change in White House, things could be rolling for both countries.
In my view Britain will be a bystander in European market and in national interest would be addressing concerns over its human rights and civil liberties record sooner than later. The latest tussle in Britain over use of term of terrorism followed by U-Turn, shows that there are efforts in hand to undo the damage to country’s human rights record and economic interests due to Blair’s pro-American policies.
Royal’s allegations over Sarkozy’s distancing from French Iraq policy during latter’s visit to White House will predictably continue to haunt both capitols in near future. However, a debate is getting louder over American Iraq policy. George Tenet’s latest book has stoked the debate but in due course of time J.J. Kirkpatrick’s Making War to Make Peace may help to unfold the psyche that Tenet describes as “haste in Iraq invasion”. As and when truth will be unveiled, both Royal and Sarkozy will have their answers.
Kirkpatrick was a seasoned diplomat and as a UN envoy has the opportunity to see the bigger picture. Iraq is a failing example of the idea of peace through strength and Jeffersonian concept of (enforced) democracy. And those who don’t agree with it may like to see another tragedy unfolding in Somalia that has its genesis in the same neoconservative philosophy.
Interestingly there are more similarities than differences in Iraq war-1 and 1993 aborted Mogadishu operation followed by second Iraq war and second Somali intervention. The latest Iraq and Somali situations show that idea of peace through strength has failed yet again. In all probability Bush father and his aides were smarter as they withdrew forces from Iraq after liberating Kuwait unlike Bush junior. No wonder Tenet is criticizing Cheney and American’s are looking at Gen. Petraeus seeking troop surge in total dismay.
Writers like Kirkpatrick have raised valid questions. Democrats need to ask right questions to find a solution to Iraq war and role of American in post Iraq world.
For a start both Democrats and Tenet (At the Center of storm) by faulting Bush are pursuing an approach that will bring more vetoes. As part of bipartisan approach both Bush and Republicans should be brought on board to view post Iraq US.
The basic question that America faces today is what Kirkpatrick posed. Should American pursue a policy of “Peace through strength” (crudely called democracy on the wings of B-52) or review its foreign policy in step with emerging global trends and subsequently American relations with rest of the world.
The emerging trends show that doctrines and ideologies are melting to make way for “collective good” in global environment. Something Californian Gov. established in last state elections in which he engaged voters beyond party lines for “collective good’.
This brings the question of role of UN. Is it a nation building organization or an extension of American foreign policy? America has to decide its place in the system.
Historically UN has provided international platform of justice, equality and protection for “collective good” that in turn provided a level playing field at global level. Nations and states used their industrial and economic strength to earn their share in international prosperity. America has benefitted equally.
UN has helped to develop advanced governance systems and enhance respect for human rights and other universal values. Iraq and Somalia show that there is no short cut to advanced governance system or entrenchment of universal values. Even for De Gaulle’s left and right political France it took 50 years to have a democratic “center”.
The history, emerging global trends and expected direction of French foreign policy under Royal shows that world is moving towards “collective good” through peaceful means. The fading religious, political, ideological doctrines are making way for mutual economic interests, human dignity and life.
The road to peace and prosperity lies in withdrawal of troops and respecting global norms for greater benefits. It depends on political leadership of American to pursue peace through strength policy or adopt pro-peace policies that respect human dignity as collective good. It can bring France and Europe, Asia and rest of the world together to face challenges of climate change, poverty and corruption.
In Britain, foreign policy experts are trying to figure out a way for their leaders to deal with France under Royal. Blair or Brown it is going to be the same foreign policy- pro White House- until a Democrat enters White House or Labor decides to call early polls.
In her speech after the knock out round, Royal spelled out landmarks that will determine country’s foreign policy agenda during her time in office. There was a part of her address though meant for local audience had international appeal.
France will be free, not locked in hands of few with power; reforms will be without brutalization, the human values survive over stock values. France will guarantee public freedom, liberty without control and respect human values. France will be an impartial state.
While addressing the international audience she talked of defending French interests in Europe and rest of the world. She envisioned Europe socially and economically capable to work in multi-polar world. She talked of EU Treaty and EU Constitution and a Europe that will be at service of peace.
She expressed faith in culture of peace, equality of life with planet and respecting universal values. She also showed support for human rights, women rights and citizen rights.
The last part of her speech aimed at French public had a universal appeal, also. “Come with me and be strong with our beautiful nation. Gather together, give smile to our country away from depression and decline”.
By talking of viable Europe in multi-polar world, respecting human values, impartial state she has revived the issues that divide Europe and America and divisions within Europe.
In the same context American and its relationship with international organizations and role of international organizations in current geo-political environment and post Iraq withdrawal environment with respect to human rights and legitimacy of war against terrorism. Royal by mentioning universal values, and rights wanted the world to know what France would stand for if she will be in the office.
If Royal will succeed to practice what she said in her speech relations between two countries can only improve if Britain reviews and restores country’s besieged human rights and civil liberties in accordance to national constitution, EU treaty and international laws.
Ironically, Britain will have either to accept EU human rights and civil liberties standards and review its foreign policy to befriend rest of Europe including France or face another decade of “isolation” or love hate relationship with Europe. Some may argue that there is nothing new to it Britain and Europe have always defined themselves differently.
It is strong assertion but Britain may have to review its foreign policy to be part of Europe on two counts lest it wants to forego the geo-political and economic advantages: Growing economic influence of Russia and China in Europe, energy interests and multi-polar world in Post US withdrawal Iraq scenario with Democrats in the Oval Office.
Energy deal between Russia and EU as a block will always be secure and better than bilateral negotiation. Britain cannot afford to ignore this reality.
ME’s look east policy starting at bilateral level with Russia, China and European states will ultimately converge on EU platform. Britain as part of the EU block may benefit from ME look east policy but will be denied same respect at bilateral level with oil rich Gulf States and rest of the Muslim world due to its Iraq policy.
There can be counter arguments to all this. True. But, experts see a integrating not dividing Europe in coming days. In addition, with international politics edging towards multi-polar world, unlike undecided Britain, Royal has made her move and preempted integration to secure country’s economic and political interests basing on emerging geo-political realities.
In addition to using EU as a platform to access international markets, she has kept the bilateral option of engaging international community on case-to-case basis. By adopting this approach, Royal has additionally kept the doors open for America, also. With any favorable change in White House, things could be rolling for both countries.
In my view Britain will be a bystander in European market and in national interest would be addressing concerns over its human rights and civil liberties record sooner than later. The latest tussle in Britain over use of term of terrorism followed by U-Turn, shows that there are efforts in hand to undo the damage to country’s human rights record and economic interests due to Blair’s pro-American policies.
Royal’s allegations over Sarkozy’s distancing from French Iraq policy during latter’s visit to White House will predictably continue to haunt both capitols in near future. However, a debate is getting louder over American Iraq policy. George Tenet’s latest book has stoked the debate but in due course of time J.J. Kirkpatrick’s Making War to Make Peace may help to unfold the psyche that Tenet describes as “haste in Iraq invasion”. As and when truth will be unveiled, both Royal and Sarkozy will have their answers.
Kirkpatrick was a seasoned diplomat and as a UN envoy has the opportunity to see the bigger picture. Iraq is a failing example of the idea of peace through strength and Jeffersonian concept of (enforced) democracy. And those who don’t agree with it may like to see another tragedy unfolding in Somalia that has its genesis in the same neoconservative philosophy.
Interestingly there are more similarities than differences in Iraq war-1 and 1993 aborted Mogadishu operation followed by second Iraq war and second Somali intervention. The latest Iraq and Somali situations show that idea of peace through strength has failed yet again. In all probability Bush father and his aides were smarter as they withdrew forces from Iraq after liberating Kuwait unlike Bush junior. No wonder Tenet is criticizing Cheney and American’s are looking at Gen. Petraeus seeking troop surge in total dismay.
Writers like Kirkpatrick have raised valid questions. Democrats need to ask right questions to find a solution to Iraq war and role of American in post Iraq world.
For a start both Democrats and Tenet (At the Center of storm) by faulting Bush are pursuing an approach that will bring more vetoes. As part of bipartisan approach both Bush and Republicans should be brought on board to view post Iraq US.
The basic question that America faces today is what Kirkpatrick posed. Should American pursue a policy of “Peace through strength” (crudely called democracy on the wings of B-52) or review its foreign policy in step with emerging global trends and subsequently American relations with rest of the world.
The emerging trends show that doctrines and ideologies are melting to make way for “collective good” in global environment. Something Californian Gov. established in last state elections in which he engaged voters beyond party lines for “collective good’.
This brings the question of role of UN. Is it a nation building organization or an extension of American foreign policy? America has to decide its place in the system.
Historically UN has provided international platform of justice, equality and protection for “collective good” that in turn provided a level playing field at global level. Nations and states used their industrial and economic strength to earn their share in international prosperity. America has benefitted equally.
UN has helped to develop advanced governance systems and enhance respect for human rights and other universal values. Iraq and Somalia show that there is no short cut to advanced governance system or entrenchment of universal values. Even for De Gaulle’s left and right political France it took 50 years to have a democratic “center”.
The history, emerging global trends and expected direction of French foreign policy under Royal shows that world is moving towards “collective good” through peaceful means. The fading religious, political, ideological doctrines are making way for mutual economic interests, human dignity and life.
The road to peace and prosperity lies in withdrawal of troops and respecting global norms for greater benefits. It depends on political leadership of American to pursue peace through strength policy or adopt pro-peace policies that respect human dignity as collective good. It can bring France and Europe, Asia and rest of the world together to face challenges of climate change, poverty and corruption.
Print
Email
