In a follow-up to the former French president’s trip to Moscow and an informal meeting with President Putin in late October, one French magazine has offered an interesting analysis of what it actually means: is it simply a way to distance himself from President Hollande or does it represent a deeper ideological shift between France and Russia?
he was the first to call for the lifting
of sanctions against Russia, in opposition to Hollande, putting him
in the camp with those who in Europe, such as Hungary, Greece and Italy,
wish to abandon the tough stance taken on Moscow led by Poland, the
Baltic states and supported by Berlin."
"The former president also called for a united front of Europe,
Russia and America against international jihadism: having the same
enemies, suffering the same threats and being exposed to the same global
risks, France and Russia are natural allies on the international
scene."
"In short, the French leader seems to align
with the long term positions defended by the Russian presidency and
proclaimed on September 28 2015 at the UN podium by Vladimir Putin."
It might also symbolize a strategic shift between the two nations.
Some in France are cautious that Nicolas Sarkozy's possible victory
in the 2017 French Presidential elections might signify a change to the
country’s strategy.
"With his trip to Moscow, Nicolas Sarkozy is
sending a signal to the most conservative wing of his party. The fight
for Christian values and traditional values, the fight against terrorism
and illegal migration, promoting a strong state and an uninhibited
patriotism…These are all the elements that the future candidate receives
in Moscow, benefiting from the aura of the Russian president."
However, the magazine notes, Nicolas Sarkozy has preserved,
despite appearances, several "pretexts" of French diplomacy from the
past decade: the continued rule of Bashar al-Assad, officially supported
by Russian authorities, is an "obstacle to the resolution Syrian
political crisis.""In addition, it is both possible and necessary to distinguish, within the Syrian opposition, between moderates and radicals, contrary to the arguments advanced by the Russian President who said this is a vain distinction at the recent meeting of the Valdai Club in Sochi by deleting the notion of a "moderate terrorism."
Finally, the idea of regime change (the neocon regime change as reviled by the Russian President) is considered a necessity by the former French president.
All the above allows the authors to suppose
that there are fundamental disagreements between the two leaders
despite an abundance of common ground.
The
position of France on the Ukrainian crisis is due to the consistently
argued principles of all French authorities, including by Sarkozy
during his presidency: the principle of territorial integrity of Ukraine
is fundamental and prohibits the recognition of such a rapid
integration of Crimea into the Russian Federation; the principle
of national sovereignty is also unbreakable and can only lead Paris
to demand the application of the Minsk I and II agreements to gradually
restore Kiev's "monopoly of legitimate violence" in Donbass.
Finally, the sanction regime is not just at the discretion of Paris
to make: a newly elected French president may well be able to argue a
case, but certainly the decision is not his alone to take amongst his
European partners.
However, in the final outcome, for Moscow,
Nicolas Sarkozy does not offer an alternative to Francois Hollande's
existing policy on Russia. While following in the traditional patterns
of French opposition leaders abroad, which involves scoring some
political points against the existing French president through cozying
up to Putin, under Sarkozy, France is likely to maintain its existing
political path meaning that the strengthening of Franco-Russian ties
remains unlikely.
No comments:
Post a Comment
smanalysis