What's Sarkozy's Game?
I awoke to the following article from Angela Charlton of the AP:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081114/ap_on_re_eu/eu_eu_russia_missiles
French President Nicolas Sarkozy undercut the American rationale for a U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe on Friday by saying that the system would do nothing to improve European security.
Sarkozy chose an interesting time to do this, of course. Iran has just developed a missile system capable of hitting southeastern Europe (though, note well, not France!) and America, of course, has just elected Barack Obama, who as one of his campaign pledges said that he would slash funding for missile defense. Sarkozy's comments, therefore, just might succeed in persuading America to abandon her plans to extend her missile defense deployment to protect Europe.
Sarkozy's stated reason was obscure ...
"Deployment of a missile defense system would bring nothing to security in Europe ... it would complicate things, and would make them move backward," Sarkozy said after a summit with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Medvedev smiled and pointed his finger at Sarkozy in approval after the comments from the French president.
... but the fact that he came out with it right after a meeting with Medvedev is worrisome, and leads to one of my three possible speculations as to his reasoning.
Here are the three possibilities, as I see them:
1. Sarkozy Is Naive
Sarkozy may really believe one or all of the following (a) there is no potential Muslim missile threat to Europe, (b) US anti-missiles can't possibly shoot a strike down if one was launched, or (c) the only reason Europe's in any danger of Muslim missile strikes is because she's allied with America. Most Western Europeans probably believe something like the above, but Sarkozy is President of France and hence presumably a member of the European political elite who actually has some contact with reality. He would be getting intelligence estimates of Iranian nuclear missile construction, of the capabilities of the various American ballistic missile defenses, and of the Islamist basic hatred for the Western European way of life. Can he really be so foolish as to think that Western Europe can stay safe by avoiding ballistic missile defense and trusting to Islamist good intentions? If he is, then look to French inertia on continental defense, with a 1940-style wakeup call looming in her future.
2. Sarkozy Is Pro-Russian
Sarkozy may have decided to suck up to the Russians. Though he was famously pro-American when elected, one big change has occurred between then and now: Obama's election to the Presidency. Sarkozy may be figuring that, under an Obama Presidency, American security guarantees will be meaningless, and that Russia will become the dominant force in Europe. The dominance of a non-Communist Russia being nowhere as scary as the dominance of a Communist one used to be, France should perhaps go along with the tide of History and becoming favored in Russian eyes by making an early submission. In this scenario, France would remain secure because Russia would guarantee France's security (possibly, eventually, even with ballistic missile defenses). If this is the case, look to future French agreements with the Russians, possibly exclusive of other European Powers.
3. La France Sur Tout!
The final possibility, and the most attractive from a French-patriotic point of view, is that Sarkozy judges that America under Obama will be a declining force for most of the next decade; Russia, as an ally, would be distant and undemanding -- the time has come for France to emerge as the real master of the European Union! Of the EU military powers, France is the only one with both nuclear weapons and a place on the Mediterranean; she is also the one most independent of the use of any "oil weapon" (owing to her early and thorough adoption of nuclear energy). As America withdraws from the world and Russia sinks into her swamp of economic failure, and as Europe becomes increasingly frightened by Islamist actions, France can leap to the fore and offer to defend Europe from her foes -- at a stiff diplomatic and economiic price. If this is the case, look to see Sarkozy quietly accelerating French work on the PAMAAS (the European ABM system), while nobly agreeing to bear most of the "burden" of building and deploying the system.
So which do you believe is the truth?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081114/ap_on_re_eu/eu_eu_russia_missiles
French President Nicolas Sarkozy undercut the American rationale for a U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe on Friday by saying that the system would do nothing to improve European security.
Sarkozy chose an interesting time to do this, of course. Iran has just developed a missile system capable of hitting southeastern Europe (though, note well, not France!) and America, of course, has just elected Barack Obama, who as one of his campaign pledges said that he would slash funding for missile defense. Sarkozy's comments, therefore, just might succeed in persuading America to abandon her plans to extend her missile defense deployment to protect Europe.
Sarkozy's stated reason was obscure ...
"Deployment of a missile defense system would bring nothing to security in Europe ... it would complicate things, and would make them move backward," Sarkozy said after a summit with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Medvedev smiled and pointed his finger at Sarkozy in approval after the comments from the French president.
... but the fact that he came out with it right after a meeting with Medvedev is worrisome, and leads to one of my three possible speculations as to his reasoning.
Here are the three possibilities, as I see them:
1. Sarkozy Is Naive
Sarkozy may really believe one or all of the following (a) there is no potential Muslim missile threat to Europe, (b) US anti-missiles can't possibly shoot a strike down if one was launched, or (c) the only reason Europe's in any danger of Muslim missile strikes is because she's allied with America. Most Western Europeans probably believe something like the above, but Sarkozy is President of France and hence presumably a member of the European political elite who actually has some contact with reality. He would be getting intelligence estimates of Iranian nuclear missile construction, of the capabilities of the various American ballistic missile defenses, and of the Islamist basic hatred for the Western European way of life. Can he really be so foolish as to think that Western Europe can stay safe by avoiding ballistic missile defense and trusting to Islamist good intentions? If he is, then look to French inertia on continental defense, with a 1940-style wakeup call looming in her future.
2. Sarkozy Is Pro-Russian
Sarkozy may have decided to suck up to the Russians. Though he was famously pro-American when elected, one big change has occurred between then and now: Obama's election to the Presidency. Sarkozy may be figuring that, under an Obama Presidency, American security guarantees will be meaningless, and that Russia will become the dominant force in Europe. The dominance of a non-Communist Russia being nowhere as scary as the dominance of a Communist one used to be, France should perhaps go along with the tide of History and becoming favored in Russian eyes by making an early submission. In this scenario, France would remain secure because Russia would guarantee France's security (possibly, eventually, even with ballistic missile defenses). If this is the case, look to future French agreements with the Russians, possibly exclusive of other European Powers.
3. La France Sur Tout!
The final possibility, and the most attractive from a French-patriotic point of view, is that Sarkozy judges that America under Obama will be a declining force for most of the next decade; Russia, as an ally, would be distant and undemanding -- the time has come for France to emerge as the real master of the European Union! Of the EU military powers, France is the only one with both nuclear weapons and a place on the Mediterranean; she is also the one most independent of the use of any "oil weapon" (owing to her early and thorough adoption of nuclear energy). As America withdraws from the world and Russia sinks into her swamp of economic failure, and as Europe becomes increasingly frightened by Islamist actions, France can leap to the fore and offer to defend Europe from her foes -- at a stiff diplomatic and economiic price. If this is the case, look to see Sarkozy quietly accelerating French work on the PAMAAS (the European ABM system), while nobly agreeing to bear most of the "burden" of building and deploying the system.
So which do you believe is the truth?