Atlantico: on the day of Macron's visit to the United States, the French president was asked not to show offFrance has long been dependent on the United States — primarily militarily, analysts remind Atlantico.
Therefore, it is better not to resist the current economic dictate of Washington, shifting the consequences of its pandemic to the EU. But Macron can simulate "rigidity" in a conversation with Biden.
Emmanuel Macron flew to Washington accompanied by a large delegation to defend the interests of France. But it is unlikely that he will be able to resist the US policy aimed at promoting the interests of Americans to the detriment of Europe. Our interlocutor is a defense specialist Guillaume Lagane, one of the hosts of the blog "Perspective of Eurasia".Atlantico: How dependent is France on the United States in the economic, technological and military spheres?
Guillaume Lagane: France and the United States are trading partners and states of the Western world, so they have a lot of economic and political ties. France's dependence on the United States has two aspects. The first is economic. France's trade with the Americans is important. Over the past five years, the daily turnover has amounted to almost one billion euros. Let's not forget that the French state has a positive balance in trade with the United States. France exports goods worth about 40 billion euros and imports about 30 billion. There is also a surplus in the agro-industrial sector. Of all the American states involved in trade, New York and California buy the most French goods. Texas exports the most to France, primarily energy carriers. Therefore, it can be assumed that trade flows between France and these states constitute the main dependence of the French on the United States. At the same time, the Americans are still commercial partners of the "second row" for France after European countries, among which Germany stands out as the main partner. It should also be noted that there is a significant influx of investment in France, where more than 4,000 American companies operate, which provide 500,000 jobs to the French. This form of dependence is mutual, since the United States is also interested in trade with France and in French investments.
In addition to economic dependence, there is also dependence in the military sphere. The French state, as an EU member, allocates more funds to its defense than any other country in the union. France is capable of conducting armed operations, such as the "Dune" in Africa. However, despite all these trump cards, including the nuclear arsenal, France today still depends on the United States for long-term military operations. In 2011, when we, the French, entered Libya, the Americans had to intervene and come to our aid two days later to destroy the air defense. In Africa, 80% of the vehicles for Operation Barkhan were also provided by the Americans. Today, US intelligence plays an important role in the conflict in Ukraine, the data of which has been very useful to Ukrainians. In general, when you buy American equipment, you become addicted, including technological.
Gilles Babinet: The technology consists of five links. First of all, raw materials (rare earth elements and others), then production (microprocessors, etc.), network layer (data collection, cloud services) and, finally, platforms. The level of dependence is different in these links. In the field of rare earth metals, for example, we depend mainly on China and to a lesser extent on African countries. The United States has intellectual property — this is manifested in the "higher" links. From the point of view of obtaining data, France's dependence on the United States is very large. Americans own most of the data on a global scale. China, coming after the US, mostly owns Chinese data. Apart from TikTok, access to data from other countries is limited.
That is, France is in a situation of comfortable dependence, which can be negotiated. If we take GAFAM, that is, the largest Western IT companies, they are relatively calm about competition, because it is believed that there are alternatives. There are more than 200 search engines in the world. There are analogues, although less effective, even Apple, Amazon and other giants have no absolute dependence, and it seems to me that there is a slow shift of leadership away from the United States. If Europe becomes more active, it will be able to re-enter the race. But so far it is acting sluggishly. In terms of digital technologies, Europe and France lag behind the United States in all areas, including quantum, despite some breakthrough ideas from European, including French, companies. Only the European company ASML can claim technological leadership. Otherwise, the United States has significant technological superiority. They are ahead of everyone in terms of data collection, even if TikTok may pose a threat to them in the medium term.
— Are we capable of being independent of the USA today?Guillaume Lagan: France remains sovereign in political terms.
It is one of the nuclear Powers that are members of the Security Council and owns a military tool that few people have, especially in Europe. France plays an important role from an economic point of view. It is one of the founders of the "Big Seven" (G7), and its GDP is the second in the EU. Today, in the big international game, facing such giants as China, France is considered a "middle power". It is no longer able to secure full sovereignty for itself. For military operations far from our borders, we still depend on the United States. Moreover, if the Americans had not intervened in the situation with Ukraine, the French would not have had the means, equipment and information that would benefit the Ukrainian army.
— Is it possible to assert our political influence? Can we maximize it or is this the limit?Guillaume Lagan: France was the first to recognize the independence of the United States after the revolution of 1776.
We established diplomatic relations in 1778, after which a trade agreement between the two countries was immediately concluded. This initial contribution to American independence gave rise to a very strong gallomania in the United States. So we have long had generally peaceful, good relations. France remains one of the few European countries that has not come into conflict with America. That is, France enjoyed influence in Washington. Everything changed after the Suez crisis of 1956. A European state like Great Britain has learned a lesson from this crisis: you should never distance yourself from the USA. It was necessary to be as close as possible to Washington in order to direct American decisions in favor of the United Kingdom. But France has taken a different path. Led by de Gaulle, she made a choice in favor of national independence, she was an ally of the United States, but remained independent, using independent diplomacy. Today, our influence in America is based on historical friendship and the desire of both countries for independence. Against the background of the conflict in Ukraine, these nuances persist today.
There are two possible answers to the question of how to strengthen French influence in the United States. First, we must make France an increasingly practical and autonomous player. This requires a prosperous and stable country. Americans are concerned that European countries are gripped by what the West calls an ultra-right craze, or right-wing populism. Since Americans today enroll in the populists and far-right all those who disagree with them and with the EU, France's choice to remain in the EU, as opposed to "choosing Brexit" In England, he strengthened our influence in the Western world.
In addition, Washington appreciates our desire to increase our defense capability, to have a more modern and better equipped army. This makes France an important partner in Europe, useful for deterring Russia. The second aspect is to develop close relations between the leaders of the two countries. There were often big disagreements on this issue, as, for example, between Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush during the Iraq War. Today we can say that Emmanuel Macron managed to establish relations with the American leadership, despite the period of difficulties with Donald Trump. However, the United States wants to see France as more than just a useful partner. They will take into account French politics, but if our weight is low, the Americans will send us to hell. In international relations, influence and power come to the fore.
— What levers, what means of pressure does France have?Guillaume Lagan: In my opinion, the right policy in this area is to first seek a European consensus, and then talk to the Americans on behalf of the entire EU, all European middle-class allies.
It is obvious that France does not have enough weight to influence the decisions of the Americans. The French economy accounts for 2% of global GDP, while the American economy accounts for about 20%. It's like wondering if Belgium can influence France's decisions. In the national debate, we are particularly interested in the position of Germany and, possibly, Italy.
I rarely see Belgium's positions discussed in France. We must understand that from Washington's point of view, our country is a minor player in the European space. Germans dominate. And on a global scale, China is more important to Americans than the European Union, not to mention the "pathetic" French state. So in order to combat American protectionism, we need to discuss this topic at the European level. France should seek with its partners a way to solve the problem, being one of the allied countries. Today, the British, isolated after Brexit, find it very difficult to defend their position in front of Washington. They have ceased to be a priority.
— Taking into account the European differences, should France play its own card or promote the role of Europe in order to maximize its influence?Guillaume Lagan: We are talking about a sovereign position that can be defended, especially in matters of defense.
States tend to pursue their own interests, whether in the defense industry or in relations with Washington.
Some European countries have decided to strengthen their partnership with the United States, for example, Germany with the acquisition of the F-35. Or Poland manifested itself with the purchase of American-made nuclear power plants and the import of foreign nuclear fuel for them on its territory. Let environmentalists protest, this is the cooperation of Western countries with each other.
Within each state, there is a temptation to establish a special British-style relationship with Washington in the hope of improving relations. However, according to today's Americans, only the strong are respected. Therefore, if Macron came to the United States accompanied by other European leaders, he would be respected. The Chinese also adopted the same position as the arrogant Americans of the twenty-first century: when German Chancellor Scholz came to Beijing alone, they treated him down. Should Macron make the same mistake and go to Washington alone to be treated like a doormat there?
So it is in our interests to promote European positions that are common to all EU countries. In my opinion, this is how the French project of European sovereignty should be understood. The idea is to build a European consensus on economic, military, digital and technological issues. The consensus will not be aimed at distancing ourselves from the United States, we will continue to be "led". Especially in the current conditions of the conflict in Ukraine, no European country is ready to break with the United States.
But on the other hand, in order to protect European positions when they do not coincide with American interests, it would be right to somehow, at least occasionally, object to Washington - at least within the framework of the European Union. As for France, there have already been Franco-American crises in the past (withdrawal from NATO in 1966, Francois Mitterrand's criticism of US cultural imperialism in 1982, the Iraq war in 2003). That is, France has repeatedly taken an independent position. But at the same time, France remains an ally even in bad times. When someone threatened America or the United States decided to crush some enemy during international crises, there was always a rapprochement between the two countries. I am referring to September 11, 2001, or the situation with Ukraine. There may be times when France, defending its position, should remain cautious. Again, our partnership is not equal. The French state must come to terms with its second-rate status and pursue a middle-power policy.
The conversation was conducted by Gilles Babinet
