What is France's Policy in Transatlantic Relations?

While the founding text of NATO, which was founded in 1949, was being written, the balance of power within the alliance was defined in an unwritten way: “The major decisions will be matured and determined by the three major members of the Alliance (United States of America, England and France) through negotiations among themselves, followed by a course of action within the alliance, and discussions will be opened and a decision will be made in this direction. However, when the USA deems it necessary, it will make the final analysis alone and ensure the formation of the main decision. The other four members (Benelux countries and Canada) were de facto faced with accepting this situation.

On the other hand, the group led by France on the European side of the US and UK-based transatlantic relations, from time to time, understands the transatlantic bond within NATO, its effects on its own national interests, to what extent this bond benefits the European identity, etc. started to question. In these approaches, which questioned the American side, the attitudes of England and Germany and the politics they followed were the determinants of the balance between the parties.

Between 1950-53, strong and loyal British support was behind the United States in Korea. Truman said, “…this war will continue until peace is established…if things go wrong (in Europe) we will not abandon our allies.” description; “We will support you till the end, we have your back,” Attlee said. He replied with his words and stated that the Anglo-American bond will always continue. This high determination of the two sides in terms of mutual support has enabled the deepening of Anglo-American relations. These approaches have also played a role in convincing other alliance members that the United States and Britain have the power to steer the agenda of the West, and that if the two countries differ in principle, this can have very serious consequences for Western security.

In the context of NATO and in terms of bilateral relations, the French society does not have the understanding of "acting together with the Americans unconditionally" that the British have. The strongest signal of this was seen in the expectation of "alliance" by the French, who lost control in Vietnam.

During the Vietnam War in the mid-1950s, the French made an attempt to protect their interests in Asia, and in particular, for the French to truly achieve great power status within NATO and in world politics. France; He proposed the establishment of the "Atlantic High Peace Council" between the United States, England, and France, but this initiative was not accepted by the United States, claiming that the existing mechanisms were sufficient. Since the "high position" of the France-England-USA, which already has a say in the Federal Germany as a tripartite group, as the Permanent Group within NATO, causes painful jealousy among the other NATO members, the USA can only make such a third attempt against France. He did not want to support it, considering that it would be beneficial.

For England, the Middle East stood out as a region that it attaches more importance to in terms of its strategic priorities compared to Asia at that time. France, on the other hand, struggled to defeat in Vietnam in the same years. France has brought to the agenda that it is not sufficiently supported by the USA and England, which have forces in the region against Vietnam. Therefore, France; It did not take kindly to the Alliance's out-of-area operations approaches, which came to the fore later on, and took an attitude that prevented the decisions to be taken in this direction. France, which does not hide that it is uncomfortable with the partnership in the British-US policies, has tended to an understanding that moves away from the Alliance over time.

As the first sign of this understanding, the work on the establishment of a European army was not approved by the French National Assembly. Thus, in a sense, it was desired to retaliate against the USA, which did not support itself in the Far East, and the interests of the USA in Europe were sought to be hindered in this way. On the other hand, this war served as a catalyst for France's decision to develop and establish its own independent nuclear forces. As a result of this decision, by taking advantage of the assurance provided by the nuclear power-based deterrence, France; It has achieved the power to successfully implement the policy of distancing itself from NATO without jeopardizing its own security. Since 1956, France has declared that it intends to serve as an independent global power that will act as a bridge between the West and the East.

With the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) signed in this period, the influence of the USA and England in South Asia increased, which means that the activities of these countries in the European policy (with the opportunities and capabilities they have and the policy they implement successfully) increased. as a result of the acceptance by the Alliance members of its activities, which are valid for the whole world, as well as has given birth to. SEATO was established in 1954 in accordance with the US policy of containment of the USSR with regard to the joint defense of Southeast Asia. SEATO, which entered into force in 1955, aimed to become a NATO-like organization in the region. The organization lost its functionality after the separation of France, then Pakistan, from the organization established by Australia, France, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand and the USA.

France started to direct all its energies to Algeria in order to suppress the Algerian uprising that emerged in November 1954. For this reason, France, which succeeded in getting the NAC decision to move its forces stationed in Europe and assigned to NATO, to Algeria, as a result of the Algerian invasion they started on May 19, 1955, by the end of 1956, approximately 400,000 French soldiers under NATO command and sent to NATO. had dispatched the assigned material to Algeria. Meanwhile, France, which is cold towards the ongoing work on the establishment of the Baghdad Pact; After losing its influence in Syria and Lebanon, it did not want to have a common policy with Britain in the context of the Middle East. However, when there were indications that Egyptian President Nasser supported the Algerian independence struggle, they wanted to act together with the British against Egypt, so the interests of these two countries intersected against Egypt on the Suez Canal.

In the same period, despite the close Anglo-American ties; Although the United States supported the British in the efforts to establish the Baghdad Pact, which was established in 1955, it officially refrained from taking part in this pact. The USA, which did not want to take part in this pact that could serve as a leg of the policy of encircling the Soviets, evaluated that Britain was trying to take part in such attempts to continue its colonial policy in the Middle East, and aimed to keep the British alone in the struggle for influence in the region. Thus, in the long run, the message was tried to be given to the Middle Eastern countries that the United States does not have a colonial approach towards the region. However, this situation, as expressed by Eden, “The United States has pursued a policy in this region that hopes to appear pleasant to its enemies at the expense of leaving its friends alone.” Going even further, Eden claimed that the US State Department followed an anti-British policy. The British, who learned from this situation, made a foreign policy arrangement considering that even their most trusted allies could sometimes leave England alone when it comes to their national policy and interests. In 1956, as the results can be seen, Eden and Lloyd started to act in line with British interests without running a consultative mechanism with the USA from now on. The assumption considered here by the British was that in a real crisis the Anglo-American bond would always be sufficient to divert American support to Britain.

Despite the triple agreement (USA, UK, France) for the preservation of the Middle East peace in 1950, by 1955, the US policy began to change. Since December 1955, the USA has started to emphasize that it would be appropriate to discuss and resolve important NATO decisions at the NAC instead of tripartite discussion, and that Italy and the Federal Germany should be included in the discussions. However, this change in the US policy, which should be considered positive in terms of NATO's operability and the principle of equality among its members; It was considered by France as an Anglo-Saxon maneuver to remove themselves from their "great power" status.

Indeed, the French were not included in the Anglo-American plan for a possible war between the Arabs and Israel in the first half of 1956. Thereupon, the statement made by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Christian Pineau, on 2 March 1956, explained the relationship between the three countries: “Our impression is that there are some studies among certain powers that do not take into account the legacy of France (about the Middle East). Despite the alliance relationship and even the assurances given, it is not possible to talk about the existence of a common policy between France, England and America (contrary to what it used to be).

Towards the end of the 1950s, the Western European states, which had partially re-developed within the framework of the Marshall Plan, with the support of the USA; they sought to establish a new order in their own continents, they tried to use their right to sit on the world political scene and accordingly to use their right to determine their own future in the best way. Knowing that their colonial policies in the context of land are no longer working, England and France, nevertheless, in a last effort, chose the path of forcibly protecting their "rights" over Egypt.

After the events of Vietnam and Egypt, the French occupation of the Atlantic basin Their relationship began to develop "on their own" for the Americans. According to the French, the Americans are trying to prevent Europe from emerging on the world stage on its own. They want to establish control over Europe by using their position within NATO. In the field of security in the post-World War II conditions, Europe actually accepted the tutelage of the other side of the Atlantic. France's stance that emphasizes its national autonomy in the decision-making process did not go beyond showing a tacit reaction against the dominant role of the USA, and there was no movement towards the system, whose criticisms were limited to the priority issues of France.

Meanwhile, NATO's Defense Strategy has revealed different approaches to the sharing of intelligence information, the production, use and transfer of military-nuclear technology. The USA, which is far ahead of its European allies in collecting intelligence information and producing military-nuclear technology, has also covered the majority of NATO's expenses. At this point, the USA's response to the criticism that "the USA does not share its intelligence information and military technology with its European allies", to which France is increasing its voice, was realized in the same context in reverse.

On the other hand, in this visible integration process in economic life, the "cracked" voices from France in front of the establishment of political unity caused the process to the European Union to be interrupted from time to time. General de Gaulle, who came to power in France in 1958 and established a new constitutional order, after the severe crisis his country faced, ensured the establishment of order in France, which was experiencing internal turmoil due to the Algerian War, after making arrangements for the 5th Republic. made the point. Thus, he had the opportunity to lead the attention of his country to Europe.

After that, he wanted to put his initiatives to strengthen the place of France in foreign policy. In the 1960s, it started to build the economic-political integration of Europe step by step. Thus, as a result of the historical efforts of de Gaulle and Adenauer in Germany, the France-Germany axis was established and the foundations of today's European Union structure were laid.

While France wanted to see the EEC as an economic forum to be used to take care of France's economic interests, it argued that the classical international relations between EEC member countries should continue. Meanwhile, in front of De Gaulle's perception of "lack of trust" against "Anglo-Saxons" during the Second World War, and France, which has an effective position in NATO after the USA, and in a sense, obtaining a strong position in NATO. De Gaulle did not hesitate to veto two applications made by England for EEC membership, considering that the strong position of France in this community could be shaken if England, which was always a covert-open obstacle, entered the EEC community. This situation went down in history as an input that slowed down the momentum of the new European Order structuring. According to De Gaulle, the British continued to follow a policy in favor of integration into the Atlantic Community, which was based on union with the USA rather than integration with continental Europe. De Gaulle; He stated that England did not act with an understanding that would serve the unity of continental Europe.

De Gaulle, who is seen as a high person who has become the symbol of French nationalism, saw his approach to the national interests of his country as equivalent to the establishment of the European Union. De Gaulle advocated the idea of ​​a "Europe of the States" instead of a supra-state structure. De Gaulle, who was always suspicious of American policies, did not feel the need to hide that he saw England as a Trojan horse. For this reason, he vetoed the UK's EU membership twice. De Gaulle's foreign policy goal is to remain a friend of America, but not to be under the control of this country. Despite being one of the founders of the EU, he argued that the interests of the common Europe do not come before the interests of France. According to De Gaulle, having nuclear weapons was a step that guaranteed the independence of France. On the day that France conducted its first nuclear test in the Great Sahara on 13 February 1960, de Gaulle telegraphed the French Minister of the Army: “From this morning, France is stronger and more proud.”

France and Germany decided to intensify their cooperation with the treaty they signed in 1963. This cooperation aimed both to counter the Soviet threat and to reduce the influence of the USA on Europe, including NATO. The President of France advocated a system in which nation-state identities are protected against those who advocate a federative structure in the European Union thought.

De Gaulle's initiation of the opening of mutual diplomatic representations between the Chinese Communist Administration and France on January 27, 1964, and subsequently "France's own nuclear deletion." The fact that he acted in line with the view that "they must have a soul" drew the reaction of the USA at first. However, this situation has been a move that opened up new minorities in front of France. De Gaulle switched the French economy to a gold-based system on February 2, 1965, with the idea of ​​moving his country to a more independent line and making it a rising identity in Europe.

The USA, on the other hand, started to express the fact that the contribution of its European allies, including France, to NATO expenses is very small. To all these debates, France gave a classical response in accordance with the de Gaulleist style. Thus, France left the military wing of NATO in 1966. Meanwhile, he started to develop special relations with the Non-Aligned Bloc.

In March 1966, France, giving a note to 14 NATO countries, conveyed its decision to leave the military wing. The French Government announced its decision to withdraw French officials from the integrated military headquarters of NATO, to end the dependence of French forces on international commands, to request the removal of international headquarters, Allied continents, facilities and bases not under French sovereignty from French territory. Thus, NATO headquarters and troops were moved from France mainly to Belgium.

Between 1966 and 2009, France continued to be on the political wing of NATO and to contribute financially to NATO. However, the French armed forces did not take part in the military wing. It is clear that, like the United States, France has shown that it does not intend to share its nuclear technology and intelligence information with its allies.

In this period, the "polycentrism" that emerged in Western Europe and the Atlantic Basin caused a negative atmosphere for both the unity of the Alliance within itself and the developing unity within the EEC. Following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969, France again began to contribute towards unification in the European political scene. Since the policy followed by France from now on was not based on a criticism of the bipolar world system, France remained on the political wing of NATO, while maintaining the opportunity to pursue a multi-faceted foreign policy.

Despite France's zig-zag appearance, NATO policy, which offers continuity, suggests that the priority issue for France is not European security, that France's national interest is prioritized in any international formation and that it prefers to seek a multi-faceted foreign policy within a bipolar international system. has shown.

Despite the difference in French-American understanding, in 1957 and 1962 Berlin Depression, 1962 Cuban Crisis, 1990-91 Gulf Crisis, France; He supported the policies of the USA. However, France has always expressed its discomfort with the attitude of the United States, which excludes its own political control, and has not failed to voice this on NATO platforms. For this reason, from time to time, due to the conflict between NATO, France and the USA, the alliance has been under the headings of “incompatibility”, “splitting”, “end of NATO”, “discussing the need for NATO's existence”, “NATO has been brain dead”. caused images that damaged his reputation.

As a matter of fact, France criticized the US firing cruise missiles against Baghdad in 1993 and Serbian positions in Bosnia in 1995, during the Iraq Operation, and that such attacks were carried out unilaterally by the US without discussion on the coalition/NATO platforms, and within the Alliance. criticized the use of mechanisms. This approach brought by France, on the other hand, was not warmly welcomed by the USA, as it would bring the rule that its forces can be used subject to the decisions to be taken by the second countries, even under the cover of coalition or NATO.

Again, the debate between France and the USA on the command of NATO's Southern Europe-AFSOUTH in 1996 was an important departure in terms of transatlantic relations and understanding France's view of the alliance. France, in 1996, taking into account the changes in NATO's command structure and the discussions on NATO's enlargement process, the AFSOUTH Command task, which was undertaken by a US general/admiral from the establishment of NATO until 1996, from the countries in the southern flank of NATO, especially France, He stated that it could be fulfilled alternately by Spain and Italy. He emphasized that this would both be an indicator of the weight of European countries in the alliance and an important symbol in terms of showing the responsibility of Europeans against threats to Europe from the south.

As a result, the American side opposed this proposal. Because the USA; The Admiral / Major General Commander appointed to the AFSOUTH Command will also be assigned to command the famous 6th Fleet (which also has the capability of launching nuclear weapons) stationed in the Mediterranean. It has acted with the understanding of double hat (NATO and National) command that prefers the Thus, it was aimed to ensure "harmony" and unity of command for the United States by gathering American interests and NATO interests of the United States in the Mediterranean on one person. He saw the French approach as a proposal that could disrupt this harmony and open other doors to the detriment of the interests of the USA. In addition, the USA; He was skeptical of France's attempt to take an operational command of a strategic nature directly, without taking part in the military structure and just starting to offer its military forces for NATO needs, without aspiring to command positions in the intermediate echelons. Countries other than the USA, on the other hand, evaluated that such cosmetic initiatives that could undermine the US contribution to European security were not important for that period. For this reason, they did not take kindly to France's offer and did not support it.

The attitude of Italy in this regard is important in terms of sampling. Activities for the Mediterranean basin were seen as the first priority for Italy. Regardless of NATO's development, the understanding that the existence of an Italy disconnected from the Mediterranean would not be strong enough has been the common attitude of Italian policy makers. In the 1990s, a series of problems arose in the South Flank of NATO, from the Balkans to the Eastern Mediterranean. The careful monitoring of this region by NATO coincided with Italy's interests and expectations. In this period, Italy advocated an understanding that paid attention to the deployment of the American 6th Fleet in Naples and thus the direct connection of the United States with the Mediterranean. But this has created a dilemma.

Italy was in a dilemma when faced with a request by France that NATO's Southern Command of Allied Forces should be handed over to a French General rather than an American General. Italy; On the one hand, it welcomed the appointment of a European General to an effective NATO Command. On the other hand, he did not want to lose the privilege of being an Italian General's assistant in its current state. In addition, he did not approve of the 'Europeanization' operation, which could cause the Americans to move away from the Mediterranean. As a result, Italy, which outweighed its national interests in the Mediterranean, gave up its support for the "Europeanization" policy of the Allied command of the French in this region.

In the 2000s, France opposed the provision of training support to Iraqi security forces under the umbrella of NATO. He stressed that such training is not a NATO responsibility. France argued that it is the most appropriate course of action for the willing countries to contribute to the education system in Iraq on their own initiative and to bear the costs. Defying collective responsibility under the banner of NATO, he stated that America could not force allies to take responsibility for education in Iraq, and he succeeded in this. On the other hand, it did not oppose the deployment of NATO Response Force elements in Afghanistan, and was even willing to support it.

In summary, within NATO and in the context of transatlantic relations, France; It has developed a culture and national consciousness that considers itself "true European". France, which sees itself as the number one representative and secret leader of Europe, has always acted with this desire. For a long time, the French policy, which opposed England's Europeanness due to its Continental European policy, was also uneasy about the development of its economic and military capabilities, which could lead to Germany's transformation into a continental power. France, which is the strongest "opponent" of US policies in the EU, today acts with the desire to play a more dominant role than Germany in NATO-EU relations, especially in terms of security and defense.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of the very high readiness force (VJTF) that is part of the NATO Response Force will be covered by France during 2022 as part of a rotational NATO deployment. France takes an active role in the military wing, which it returned to in 2009.

References:

Star Y.G. (2001). Searching for Strategic Vision and Turkey, Der Publishing, Istanbul.

NATO Information. (1971). NATO Information and Documents, NATO Information Service, Brussels

Sönmezoğlu F., Arıboğan Ü., Ayman G., Dedeoğlu B. (1996). International Relations Dictionary, Der Publications, Istanbul.

FRUS. (1949). Statement by the United States and United Kingdom Groups, November 14, Vol 6.

Sherwood E.D. (2000). Allies in Crisis, Meeting Global Challenges to Western Security, Yale University Press, New Haven & London.

Turkes M. (2004). “Continuity and Change in US-Turkey Relations in the Context of NATO”, Analysis of Turkish Foreign Policy, Compiled by Faruk Sönmezoğlu, 3rd Edition, Der Publications, Istanbul.