This is not the first time Emmanuel Macron’s interview on foreign policy issues has caused a stir in the ranks of the Western alliance. Speaking to the Economist in November 2019, the French president said that NATO was in a state of “brain death”, prompting Angela Merkel to publicly disagree and drew praise from Moscow for his “true words”. In June last year, in an interview with newspapers in the French region, he said that Russia “should not be humiliated” in the war with Ukraine, so that after the end of the war there would be room to restore relations with the West. The comment provoked an angry reaction from Kyiv – and not only. Related episodes abound.

An interview published over the weekend in Politico and French newspaper Les Echos, which he gave on the presidential plane returning from a visit to China, may be the most controversial of all. In a version of the interview published in Politico, the French president says that Europe’s “greatest danger” is “getting involved in crises that are not ours, which will prevent it from building its strategic autonomy.”

Panic-stricken Europeans should not believe that we are just followers of America, Macron said, adding that it was “not in Europe’s interests” to “provoke” a crisis in Taiwan caused by “the US agenda and China’s overreaction.” .

China’s three-day military exercise in the Taiwan area, which began hours after the French president’s plane left Chinese airspace, has sharply highlighted the geopolitical stakes and sparked criticism of Macron, especially from the United States.

Revealing was the reaction of Senator Marco Rubio, the most senior Republican on the Intelligence Committee, who wondered, “Maybe we should basically say, ‘We’re going to focus on Taiwan and the Chinese threat, and you’re on Ukraine?’ Former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder was even more blunt, noting in a Twitter post: “Macron doesn’t want to ‘get involved in crises that are not ours’, like Taiwan.” But he has no problem relying on US security commitments to manage crises like Ukraine’s in Europe. This is not “strategic autonomy”. This is strategic nonsense.”

The French geopolitical approach – and the irritation it causes in Washington – has deep historical roots, Charles de Gaulle is a prime example of this.

For his part, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Tuesday that “an alliance with the United States is the absolute foundation of our security” and that some Western leaders “dream of cooperation with anyone from Russia to Far Eastern powers.”

On the same day, the Elysee Palace was forced to clarify that France “does not maintain an equal distance from the United States and China. The United States is our ally, we share common values.”

But did Macron really say something new in this interview? The concept of strategic autonomy is precisely this: non-identification with other great powers, the development of an independent policy in the vital areas of foreign policy and defense, energy, trade relations and technology.

This French geopolitical approach – and the irritation it causes in Washington – has deep historical roots. 60 years ago, Kennedy complained about Charles de Gaulle and his harsh criticism of American foreign policy. The then president of France, according to Kennedy, seemed to want the protection of the United States and at the same time absolute freedom to shape his country’s foreign policy.

Romance or not, the visit and controversial interview came at a time when Europe was feeling the strategic cacophony over China. The German government appears to be internally divided on this issue (as on many others) and is a fortiori incapable of reaching a common European position. Ursula von der Leyen’s recent landmark speech on EU-China relations was praised for its realism and directness. But there are still many different approaches among member states on the degree of distancing from the Chinese economy, positions on sensitive advanced technologies, and the extent to which these issues should be centrally coordinated rather than national policies.

Four experts analyze the President of France

“K” asked four international analysts to assess the hype and hype caused by Macron’s intervention. Noah Barkin specializes in Western-China relations as a consultant for the Rhodium Group Research Center and as a Senior Visiting Fellow at the German Marshall Fund in the USA. Mathieu Dischatel is Director of International Studies at the Montaigne Institute in Paris. Thorsten Benner is co-founder and director of the German GPPI Institute. He maintains a close relationship with the ruling SPD and has systematically stressed the need for Germany and the EU in recent years. raise its status in relation to Beijing. And Sibel Oktay is a senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, specializing in EU foreign policy.

Diplomatic fiasco

Emmanuel Macron’s trip to China and the interviews he gave there were particularly problematic on several levels. First, he made it clear that he did not agree with Washington’s policy towards China, which he considers confrontational and provocative, especially on the sensitive issue of Taiwan. To express such an opinion in China and at a time when the US is actively investing in European security was a mistake.

Second, Macron showed that France is determined to strengthen political and economic ties with China at a time when Europe and its closest allies are moving in the opposite direction. Macron spoke of a common future and signed a “strategic partnership” with Beijing. A video he posted of the trip showed Xi as a close ally of France, rather than an authoritarian leader increasingly aligned with Vladimir Putin in the anti-Western coalition.

Third, the visit undermined European unity towards China. Macron sent opposite messages from the hardline Ursula von der Leyen, who traveled with him to Beijing, signing business deals and avoiding expressing support for the European Commission president’s agenda.

It was a diplomatic fiasco that damaged the fragile common line of the Western alliance against China. The manner and timing of Macron’s speech was a gift from Xi without the French president getting anything in return, especially when it comes to Ukraine.

Narrow limits of autonomy

Emmanuel Macron’s worldview has always been characterized by the fact that France and Europe must do everything possible to avoid the return of the international system to a bipolar order defined by US-China rivalry. This view is one of the factors explaining his comments about returning from Beijing. Whether this is realistic or not is a separate question, it is rather an aspiration. When it comes to European strategic autonomy, there is a common denominator that makes possible the initiatives that Europe is currently undertaking together: the creation of policy tools to manage serious imbalances and asymmetries in relations with the EU. – China. The maximalist view of building Europe as a third pole is not one on which there is consensus within the EU, especially given the vital role that the United States continues to play in maintaining the European security order. Therefore, Macron’s emphasis on the need to win the ideological battle for strategic autonomy was exaggerated.

Demonstration of European hatred

During his visit to China, French President Emmanuel Macron had two very important goals: to convince President Xi to play a more constructive role in Russia’s war against Ukraine and to show that Europe is unanimous against China as well. He failed on both fronts.

In any case, it will be difficult to secure any significant concessions on China’s stance on the war, given that Xi bases his support for Putin on the long-term need to have Russia on his side in his confrontation with the US. But Macron should have been made clear that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine affects fundamental European interests and that any further Beijing’s support for Moscow, including arms sales, would have serious implications for relations with the EU. – China.
Accompanied by a 50-person business delegation, Macron sent a message to Xi in a rather conventional vein, portraying France and Europe more concerned with short-term economic deals than protecting their own interests. Macron also invited European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to travel with him to Beijing, but then undermined her core messages about reducing the risk of economic relations with China and preventing the use of military force against Taiwan. Macron has turned a trip to China into a showcase for European divisions. Worse, Macron appears to have agreed with the Chinese regime’s intention to take control of Taiwan. He appears to have held the United States solely responsible for the escalation in the region, ignoring both the democratic will of 24 million Taiwanese and Xi’s aggressive actions.

In fact, the damage is even deeper: By avoiding Xi’s criticism and speaking out against the US, Macron has provided ample ammunition for those inside the EU. critics of his “European sovereignty” agenda, just at a time when we need investment to strengthen Europe.

SIMBEL OKTEY
Chicago Council on Global Affairs

Macron’s recent comments reveal two recurring phenomena in French foreign policy. France has historically been wary of relying on the US for European security, at least since the time of Charles de Gaulle. Macron’s comments on strategic autonomy are simply a resurrection of a chronic situation. Taiwan’s comments are more important. They clearly signal France’s fears about the US withdrawal from Europe. Historically, Taiwan has always been a thorn in the side of NATO allies, as they believed that a conflict in Asia would force the US to divert its attention from Europe. Macron voiced these concerns, expressing a desire not to be “follower of America.” The US should view his comments not as treason but as a sign of concern for European allies. How can Washington continue to provide security guarantees to our Europe in the face of a threat from China? That is the question.