The middle East between Freedom fries and French fries: the Franco-American diplomatic ping pong
International affairs series Part 1 (Written in January)
(French fries from McDonald by Tijana Dobic)
The Palestinian cause since its forced inception during the 48 ‘Nakba’, has been unfolding within a complex geopolitical landscape marked by historical grievances, power games and conflicting narratives. 75 years of struggle for statehood, self determination and rights have culminated into a world without moral absolutes nor clear-cut innocence. After the 7th of October, the world witnessed a judgless war waged against the civilians in Gaza as a retaliation. Like in the somber universe of Albert Camus' Caligula, the powerful wield control without accountability, and international interests now develop outside of normative institutions.
The consequence of this, is the expansion of the conflict from the war zone to the cultural fault lines separating civilizations from one another. This highlights the cruciality of Multilateral diplomacy in containing the clash of civilizations and ensuring a world order built on law and justice instead of brute force. Here, comes the role of two major catalysts: The United States and Europe. Transatlatlantic diplomatic ties might be the single most important variable in shaping the prospects of peace in the middle east and in the world by proxy. However, this crucial alliance has been subject to many spasms and hiccups, especially when it comes to the franco-american relations. The diplomatic bifurcation between the old continent and the new world has reached paroxysm during the Iraq war in 2003 when France affirmed a different vision for the world than that of the US. Nevertheless, the franco-american ties are far more complex than a simple divergence. The current Israel-Palestine war raised the Palestinian question insistingly to international players, and placed the future of history in the midst of a Franco-American ping-pong.
Chirac`s France was not new to this diplomatic divergence. Since Degaulle’s time, France has taken a bifurcating approach to international affairs to that of the United States and sought to limit the unipolarity of the world. In 29 August 1963, the French Minister of Information Peyrefitte publicised President Charles de Gaulle’s position on the Vietnamese war as he stated that An undivided Vietnam “would find France ready, to the extent of her own possibilities, to set up a cordial cooperation” (New York Times 1963). This declaration was a discrepancy from American policies in Southeast Asia.On the American side, the Kennedy administration officials entered a frenzy trying to confute the French’s take on the indochina war. Washington’s corridors of power echoed their frustration by using economic diplomacy to force a reduction in France 's war effort in North Africa. During the Suez crisis, France had an acute budget and balance of payments deficit. The americans capitalized on it to do some arm-twisting regarding Algeria. the US approved a death-kiss loan for France. The $650 million bundle required France to drastically cut its military expenditures and demobilize the 150000 troops deployed in Algeria during the peak of turmoil. The border dispute with Tunisia and the bombing of the frontier village of Sakiet Sidi Youssef lead to Washington placing a proviso on its transatlantic ally to reach an agreement with the FLN.
After the cold war, the United States remained as the sole hegemon in international scene. It perceived that its role was to break the dishes and that of Europe was to glue them back together. However, Issues that require coordinated actions like North Korea, Iran,Russia etc.., revealed that the US needs the cooperation of its allies within multilateral organisations to collect significant intelligence and to put political, economic, or military sanctions in place
effectively. In the recent years , there has been a distinct shil in transatlantic relations. France, stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the U.S. in Syria,Mali, and the Central African Republic... Under Hollande’s mandate, the French administration had a promising potential as a reliable ally for Obama’s administration. Their military and intelligence “folie-a deux” couldn’t even be disturbed by the NSA’s spying on French citizens. Instead of tempering the desire of its ally frome engaging in endless and unfruinuil wars, France has started leaning towards the same taxing method. The US, sees the world as an essentially anarchic and violent place where military force must be flaunted if needs be. The French weren’t really cheese eating surrender monkeys. They didn’t shy away from military intervention(Afghanistan for example), but they used to value the balance of power theory. They tried to give a constructive counter-proposal to the US’s crusade diplomacy. France’s seemed to be previously concerned with creating a framework for the used force and a clear roadmap for the alermath of the military intervention. This is no longer the case, or maybe it has never actually been the case.
Any military intervention without a clear vision, especially in areas of the middle east that is already built on the fragile coexsitence between a multitude of fractions, will only trigger a fallout and exacerbate tensions. It will leave the region in deeper turmoil, just like the civil war between Sunni and Shiaa muslims in Iraq. Even as the horrors of the Palestinian civilians in Gaza transpire, the US isn’t swayed from its unconditional support to the state of Israel. President Biden has even been corrected by the white house for including and reinforcing misinformation in an attempt to justify the Israeli military offensive on the Gaza strip. The multitude of visits of secretary Anthony blinkin to Israel entailed an unwavering endorsement of their military action. As this presumably ‘tit-for-tat’ slant takes form, the international community keeps witnessing gruesome infractions of international law, humanitarian law and full-blown documented war crimes. The declared goal of this massacre is to uproot Hamas. This leaves us with fundamental questions: How to define the limits of the reach of the Hamas’s movement and how effective would a military action be? How to protect civilians and respect international law during such operations ? How would the aftermath of this operation look like ? What institutions would replace Hamas’s structures? How to contain the Arab and muslim communities’ outrage over this offensive? How to stabilize the public opinion in the west as all of this unfolds?
These questions became quite rhetorical in the current situation, because of the foggy vision of the Biden and Netenyahou administrations and the precipitation towards revengeful action without a political outline. Hamas is not just an a military structure, and it did not emerge in a vacuum. It is the simple enactment of Newton’s third law. for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.There is an ongoing occupation and displacement of the local populations which lead to the arise of an ideology of resistance that could uphold extreme ideals. How to uproot Hamas ? Killing the current members of hamas and creating collateral damage among civilians, will only create a fertile ground for a stronger and more affluent Hamas. The only way to uproot Hamas is to sit rational representative from both sides on the table and negotiale the future of a Palestinian state. As for the aftermath, the destruction of the civilian infrastructure and the rising death toll, will make any transplanted authority backed by the west,illegitimate and unable to operate effectively in Gaza. Furthermore, the clumsy diplomacy of the involved parties and the blatant double standards, has magnified religious and ethnic nationalism among arabs and muslims, who feel they are constantly discarded by the west, and has started to spill over to the public opinion whose ideals feel unrepresented by the governments and decisions makers.
The ceasfire protests in the American and European cities will slowly gain a new dimension. The outrage over the gallic shrugs by local governing bodies to the suffering of Muslims and Arabs will trickle down to other causes like racism, the oppression of other native populations (US and Canada..), and other controversial territories (Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Congo..). The clash of civilizations Huntington was talking about, became a haunting reality. People have started to summon their indentities in the debate about liberation and justice. This will create a dangerous link between an oppression system and the civilization it is embedded in . It will seize to be a country to country clash, but will eventually degenerate into a West vs East, a crusade Vs Jihad confrontation, etc...This slippery slope will set the world up for more devasting and more costly conflicts.
When Freedom fries fail, one would have hoped for the French fries to fill in. Chirac’s France did not commit a “faute de parcours” when it didn’t support the Iraq war. The cheese-eating politicians have a history of assertive stances in the Middle East. On October 22, 1996, Israeli security services were heavily during Jacques Chirac’s visit of the streets of the Old City of Jerusalem which made it impossible to interact with Palestinians. It was then, on the Via Dolorosa, that the head of state lost his temper and addressed the Israeli officers : "What's the problem now? I'm gevng fed up! What do you want? Me to go back to my plane and go back to France? Is that what you want? Let them go, let them do. This is not a method, this is a provocation. That is provocation. Please you stop now." This visit allowed Jacques Chirac to enjoy considerable popularity in the Arab world. Through it, the French President also assumed the symbolic role of the one who said no to Israel. On the 22ND of January 2020, Macron’s pastiche of Chirac’s stance didn’t hold the same weight even though he repeated his same words during a Jerusalem visit: “This is provocation”. This time, the French fries were heavily unseasoned. The gesture felt like an affordable attempt to garner the sympathy of the Arab populations. However, Macron has already severed ties with the public in the MEA, and North Africa, by finger pointing immigrants, muslims and arabs squeamishly on multiple occasions. The president, who is already failing the popularity polls at home, struggles to make France heard, because he is unable to embody its past resolve nor invoke any form of nostalgia of the charismatic French leaders. After the 7th of October attacks, he rushed to state France’s absolute and unequivocal support to Israel, thus, disregarding the sentiment of the approximately 6 million muslim immigrants in France. This impulsive position resulted in two major mistakes. One was risking the stability of the French public opinion and its delicate social cohesion,and the second was rallying blindly behind the decision-making of the Israeli administration. In the words of Raymond Aron : “the French are continually surprised by what they have just done”. Soon aler Macron’s impetuous statement, the political unrest started to unfold: Hospital bombings, civilian deaths, protests condemning people involved. Emmanuel Macron broke with the US position, and called for a cease-fire. In his words, there is "no justification" for the bombing. He even said that a ceasefire would benefit Israel.When referring to the prospect of US and Britain also demanding a ceasefire, he said: "I hope they will."After the humanitarian conference on Gaza held in Paris, Macron became quite vocal about his position in this ping-pong round. "De facto- today, civilians are bombed- de facto. These babies, these ladies, these old people are bombed and killed. So there is no reason for that and no legitimacy. So we do urge Israel to stop," he said. France no longer supports Israel unconditionally. Now, it will make sure there are more buts, ifs and maybes in its official statements. Unfortunaly, just like fries, political positions become distasteful when delivered late. Macron missed the opportunity to reaffirm France’s diplomatic command and to compensate for the shortcomings of its Transatlantic ally. He joined the US in its hasty politics and militarist fetishism, until it was too late to bounce back from the damage done to their respective images in the eyes of the rest of the world.
In echoing Robert Kagan's perspective, the U.S. is from Mars, while France is from Venus, signifying their contrasting stances on numerous global issues France has etched itself as a paradigm of the intricate diplomatic interplay between the United States and Europe .It demonstrated on multiple occasions a considerable divergence in foreign policy approaches. However, the current scenario depicts a shift in dynamics. Europe is grappling with discordance, and France is struggling to establish its diplomatic potency. It has embraced ground-level militarism while advocating diplomacy through empty rhetoric, which only propels the illegitimacy of its voice in the Middle East .
Yet, the focal point remains on the forthcoming moves in this continuous diplomatic back-and- forth.France stands at a critical juncture, requiring a reevaluation of its Middle East diplomacy, starting with the pivotal Palestinian cause, which acts as the linchpin of the region's conflicts. Initiating crucial dialogues with the United States became an urgent imperative. Negotiations with both Palestinian and Israeli authorities to mediate a lasting resolution need to be bokered by the transatlantic allies within the frames of international institutions and law. These negotiations need to lay the cornerstone for the establishment of a Palestinian state, fortified with an empowered authority. France must not only evoke Chirac's historical involvement in the Middle East but also rekindle alliances within the Transatlantic sphere to navigate through these complex negotiations by steering the US away from repeating previous mistakes in the middle East region. Diplomatic solutions are the only way forward. Hence, They need to be brave,rational,and quick.
Failed to render LaTeX expression — no expression found