France, U.S. have much in common

Nicolas Sarkozy, the new and mercurial president of France, may or may not be the best thing that’s happened to France in a long time. It’s too early to predict his domestic fortunes, and his drive to see France work harder and vacation less, has already led to collision with his country’s tough unions.

But his election last summer and undisguised affection for the United States is the best thing that’s happened to the U.S. for a while. And it’s not because he holds the Bush-Cheney administration in high regard.

Sarkozy, who broke the first rule of French vacations by spending August on Lake Winnipesaukee, whirled through Washington last week to deafening applause. President Bush called him his new best friend; the Congress that switched the menu to “Freedom fries” after France’s opposition to the Iraq war, gave him several standing ovations when he spoke of his admiration for American values and saluted the sacrifice of American soldiers for France and other countries around the world.

Many American observers seem startled by this turn of events. But it shouldn’t be surprising at all. Despite distinct differences such as a more philosophical turn of mind, a deeper suspicion of religiosity, France and the United States have more in common than the U.S. and Britain in many ways. The Statue of Liberty, a gift from France, is a fitting symbol of that spirit, diversity and independent streak.

“Americans often forget that the French are mainly pro-American,” observes a British business consultant in Paris, “and they do recognize the debt they owe America. But they hate to have it thrown in their face all the time. Bush is widely dismissed here as blind to the way the world works. And his constant use of religion causes dismay because France really believes in separation of state and religion – something America seems to have forgotten.”

And, who can fault Sarkozy’s predecessor Jacques Chirac for opposition to the Iraq war? He was right.

Yet, Sarkozy’s dynamism and policies are going a long way to restoring French-American relations to where they belong – close on main principles while strong enough to allow differences over various policies.

What is most important about Sarkozy right now is his willingness to stand firm against Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons – or, to put it more accurately, the desire of hard-line elements, now in control of Iran’s centers of power, to pursue a nuclear capability. His firm stance may just help us get through the next year without the Bush administration undertaking another reckless military gamble.

Sarkozy and his foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, have spoken out plainly and strongly in opposition to Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon – still several years away under most estimates. And that bluntness has solidified western opposition, thereby strengthening the likelihood that tough political and economic sanctions against Iran will be more effective than threats of military force.

A positive byproduct of this development is that the hardliners in Washington, such as Vice President Dick Cheney and the neo-con clique that brought us the war in Iraq, and the hardliners in Tehran who brought us the hostage crisis and a number of terrorist acts, can not feed off each other quite so easily.

Bush and Cheney face formidable challenges in their last year in office. But in seeking to gain some semblance of stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, to bring American pressure to bear as an honest broker in the Middle East peace process, at last, they need all the help they can get to begin to restore America’s credibility and legitimacy as a world leader.

Iran’s nuclear ambition may be the most serious challenge. But Bush and Cheney, who ignored an overture from Iran in 2003 to discuss all outstanding issues, need to stop yammering about “World War III” and military options for a while – and for once observe Teddy Roosevelt’s advice, to “speak softly and carry a big stick.” A clear, tough stance is fine, but they need to undertake a full-scale diplomatic offensive, as strongly recommended by the Iraq Study Group – something they’ve rejected. And French cooperation on a diplomatically nuanced, no-nonsense policy would be a welcome contrast to Tony Blair’s unqualified support for the Bush-Cheney war in Iraq.

The old “special relationship” between the United States and Britain may have died in Iraq. The French are too invested in their national interests to want a new “special relationship” with Washington, but a stronger and healthier mutual engagement may be developing in the coming showdown with Iran.

Fred Hill of Arrowsic was a foreign correspondent for The Baltimore Sun and worked on national security issues on Capitol Hill and in the State Department.