France – IPDGC Smart Power

A Fallen France? French Identity Narratives Viewed through the AUKUS Deal

April 14, 2022May 10, 2022Europe, public diplomacy6 Comments

By Jesse Tanson, MA International Affairs ’22

The AUKUS incident between France, the United States, and Australia occurred due to a contract breach between Australia and France. Australian authorities had contracted France to develop shortfin barracuda submarines to meet its maritime defense needs in 2016 for $38.6 billion. As the deal was delayed and costs increased, the Australian government decided to opt for American-built submarines because they have nuclear capabilities. The abandonment of the deal provoked the removal of the French ambassador to the United States, a first in the history of the Franco-American relationship. Ambassador Etienne returned to Paris for a brief period before returning to his post. The event prompted conversations about alliances and France’s role in the world.

France in the U.S.’ world?

The projection of power was key to the formation of modern France. As an empire, France saw its power expand throughout the world and the country was synonymous with influence.

Until WWII, France saw itself as a world power, influential militarily and culturally. However, its leadership in the world waned as the United States became the world superpower following WWII when the US helped the French fight the Germans, hurting Paris’ pride. Furthermore, the U.S. had obtained nuclear weapons and spread its culture globally, ousting France from the top position. To reclaim its identity as a top contender in a U.S.-dominated world, France developed its own nuclear arms program. In other words, Charles de Gaulle saw it necessary for France to arm itself with nuclear weapons to reassert its dominance in the new world order.

Similarlyfor President Macron, nuclear power is equal to French world leadership. Macron announced a nuclear buildup of 14 generators to reduce carbon emissions and reliance on foreign energy, namely from Russia. Now France also hopes to best the United States and China in the nuclear power race. If France can become Europe’s top nuclear power producer, it can position itself as a worthy adversary of the United States.

Paris still holds onto its former colonies as trade partners, but increased Chinese involvement in the region may drive away French business. The AUKUS deal represented another defeat to French power, prompting it to react strongly. Paris needed to show resolve in the face of its people, Europe, and the world.

A stab in the back?

*French Minister of Foreign Affairs Yves Le Drian (Community Commons)*

The immediate ending of the $38.6 billion deal shocked the world, not least of all the French. French Minister of Foreign Affairs Yves Le Drian called the dropping of France in the deal “a stab in the back.” Following a conversation with the Australian Prime Minister, President Macron alleged that he was lied to about the failed submarine deal. The U.S. actions attacked France’s falling self-image. The deal demonstrated to France that it would be a second-choice partner, behind the United States. As it struggled to reclaim its lost glory, France found its plans thwarted by U.S. enterprise. Furthermore, the failure of the deal demonstrates the American hegemony against which France has fought for several decades. In France’s view, the United States violated norms in pursuit of its interests, slighting its European allies in favor of its Anglophone partnerships. The submarines France intended to sell to Australia were non-nuclear, per agreements to half nuclear proliferation. From this perspective, France sees the United States as violating agreements established by democracies with shared values. Thus the AUKUS deal struck to the heart of France’s identity of a nuclear power with global trade ambitions.

A Simple Mistake?

The AUKUS deal represented a breach of trust for the French and larger European community, an opportunity to better arm itself for Australia, and another means to secure the indo-pacific for the United States. To resolve the issue, President Joe Biden met with President Emmanuel Macron. The two heads of state addressed the deal, with the American leader referring to the turn of events as “clumsy.” President Biden claimed that he was under the impression that France was aware of the switching of clients. The difference in perspective reveals differences in the larger identity narratives of the two countries. France’s concern was its image as a world power, which has dwindled in recent history. The deal, for France, would have returned lost prestige to the country. France falls behind the United States and Russia as the third-largest weapons exporter globally. The United States, possessing the title of the world’s greatest superpower, merely acted in line with its own identity; it sought to ensure security. The fact that France was caught in crossfires was a blunder, as President Biden explained.

*US President Biden and French President Macron (AP Photo*)

Reinforced Cooperation?

Though the AUKUS affair ended with the return of French Ambassador Etienne and the two sides found an agreement, what would this mean for France? France successfully defended itself against the United States and was successful in obtaining an admission of guilt from the American president.

For more on the topic by the author, please click here.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

Learning Public Diplomacy in Europe — China: Still Center of Controversy

March 9, 2012public diplomacyLeave a Comment

In Paris, whenever I’m asked where I am from, I have difficulty in giving a short answer. I am a Chinese national, which is apparent from my Asian face, but I’m also on exchange to a French university from an American graduate school. For many, however, the fact that I’m studying public diplomacy (PD) in France, a fancy new subject that is coined by an American is more confusing than my trajectory of school life.

Here I am in Paris, attending a class called “Public diplomacy and international communication”. Unlike in the Elliott School where my classmates were mostly either from Asia or the US, here in my public diplomacy class in Sciences Po (Paris), the classroom is composed of students from all over the world including India, Canada, Columbia, Nigeria, France, Britain, the US, China, etc.

The benefit of a diverse class background is that I can always hear an insider explaining the public diplomacy of his or her country, as well as their views on China. These opinions, which arise in almost every class and form a fierce debate afterwards, however, have shocked me from time to time.

Controversy #1: “PD in a non-democracy never works.”

My first day of the class started with the comment “PD in a non-democracy never works” from an American classmate. I was sitting in the front row, blushed and shocked. I didn’t take it personally, but I was quite disappointed that in later classes, this sentiment was expressed repeatedly among my classmates.

When we covered the practice of nation branding in PD, the Olympics in Beijing was cited as an example. A Canadian classmate then negated China’s Olympics showbiz with reference to China dubbing the voice of the girl who sang a nationally reputed song. I was surprised to realize that for an emerging power like China, whenever it tries hard to prove itself, people in the west will still link its action with the governing ideology. Under such circumstances, they will be most easily impressed with the scandal the smears China’s entire image. Hence, China’s display of its ancient culture is swamped under such mindset.

Controversy #2: China + Syria = China’s failure in PD

Right after China vetoed the UN resolution to request the Syrian president to resign, every time I walked in the 13th quartier in Paris which is full of Arabs, I was afraid I would be kidnapped. This fear converts to the anxiety of being attacked verbally in my PD class. Neither of these happened, but China and Syria was constantly brought up in the class as well as the French media.

Once we had Bernard Kouchner as a guest speaker, who was the former French Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, who is certainty furious at how “our friend China” has obstructed the French active negotiation to pass the resolution on Syria, and under this comparison, China is easily depicted as the irresponsible, self-interested power. I’m not defending China’s stance here, but I have to point out that the fact that the world lacks knowledge about why China is against international action against Syria IS an example of China’s failure in public diplomacy.

Comics on China and Russia vetoing UN resolution on Syria France 24, the French international news channel. Retrieved on 03/03/2012.

Though this is quite sad, I have found that people regardless of their nationality have formed their opinions on current affairs based on media coverage. Criticism against China is prevailing in the western media, while China’s voice of defense is usually ignored or given limited coverage. In fact, every non-Chinese I have talked to has a duplicated mindset of what’s on the media, that is, China is letting civilians dying in Syria while holding its vested geopolitical interests. In the United Nations, every country has been acting on behalf of itself, while concerned with the safety of others in the world. Do the western powers like France, which has been trying to reestablish itself internationally and the US have no individual agenda in mind?

I try to explain things in China to my classmates when they express hostile opinions. Their overwhelmingly negative evaluation of China is due to China’s Communist root (usually perceived as contrary to democracy), one-party system, and the lack of a strong, credible international media. As an exchange student studying abroad, I myself is part of the practice of public diplomacy. And at present, I’m enjoying my role that transcends Chinese media such as CCTV (China Central Television) English and the 24-hour English Channel CNC (China Xinhua News Network Corporation) who are perceived to be propagandists among those who have heard of them.

Baby You Can Drive My Car. Please.

March 7, 2012public diplomacy1 Comment

Americans tend to think—and politicians tell them at almost every opportunity—that theirs is the greatest, richest, freest country in the world. Leaders seem to consider this description so self-evident that they rarely provide evidence, nor do their audiences demand it. A major reason is the absence of truly “global communication” in most American households. Most Americans seem utterly unfamiliar with the public polices, political practices, daily lives and living standards even of this country’s closest allies. When messages about France, Germany, Norway, Spain and even the UK do reach US media, their main purpose is often to disparage these countries—again without much evidence.

A lot could be said about this but for now consider the car. I just spent 6 weeks in Madrid and had time to ponder why so many European cities seem so much more charming and livable than just about any American city. I think it’s got a lot to do with cars, specifically the paucity thereof.

In Madrid, just like DC, there are plenty of wide boulevards, where car traffic is heavy at rush hour. But there are also many, many pedestrian passages, plazas and narrow medieval streets that cars never or rarely traverse. At least in the center, you can walk for several blocks, or sit out at a café on a plaza like the one I lived on (Plaza de la Paja, the oldest in Madrid—see picture) for an hour and not see or hear a car. You can enjoy being outside, as Madrileños do even when it’s cold, soaking in sun and (fairly) fresh air, communing with other people. No need as in DC to will yourself to block out the noise and aesthetic assaults generated by automobiles and trucks. In this dimension, Madrid offers a great, rich (indeed priceless, unobtainable) experience in daily living, one most Americans are not free to enjoy whatever their income level.

Of course there are a hundred reasons for the greater charms of European capitals (not to mention the smaller towns). Some relate to cars and public policy (high gasoline taxes, heavy investment in mass transit enabled in part by far lower investment in military infrastructure), most to history, climate and many more factors.

My points in bringing up cars and comparative living standards are three: 1) The arguments for Americans reducing reliance on cars are numerous and thoroughly familiar to readers of blogs like this: augmenting national security; reducing the trade deficit; cutting the indirect funding that guzzling gas provides to terrorist organizations and nasty regimes; slowing climate change. What’s significant is how marginalized—to the point of invisibility—such reasoning is in the public discourse of 2012.

2) This in part reflects one area where America may indeed be the leader among affluent countries. I’d hypothesize (I’m not sure) that we enjoy the dubious distinction of the greatest isolation of citizens from globally communicated information and globally shared (at least among the wealthy democracies) cultural assumptions. Among many other areas, this manifests itself in the political impossibility of even mentioning the option of raising gasoline taxes to, say, half of what Europeans pay. Gasoline here in Berlin runs about 1.6 Euros, around $2.12, per liter—about $8 a gallon. The difference between that number and what Americans pay is mostly tax.

3) Americans’ isolation from two-way global communication both reflects and reinforces their impoverished sense of such words as “greatest,” “richest,” and “freest” when applied to the US.

I’m not saying this is anyone’s fault. Politicians and media can’t attack conventional notions of the normal until enough citizens share some assumptions and perceptions to make sense of the attacks. But citizens can’t develop such thinking unless their leaders and media provide the basis. If Americans could somehow plug into global communication more than they do now, perhaps the vicious circle might be interrupted.