|
| Sarkozy takes the plunge in Afghanistan |
|
|
| Wednesday, 09 April 2008 | |
|
Nicolas Sarkozy is to commit more than a thousand extra French troops to fight in Afghanistan under NATO. France is at war, in case you hadn’t noticed, and has been for seven years, albeit a very genteel part of the war with hardly any fighting. Just a few bombs dropped. Now it is about to get a bit more serious. We do not yet know for sure whether the 8th Parachutist Regiment from Castres will be in support or actually, like the Americans, Canadians, Dutch, New Zealanders and British, fighting the Taliban. It is known that some of the troops will be Special Forces, withdrawn from Afghanistan in January 2007 by Président Chirac. Ever since Général de Gaulle withdrew French troops from NATO command, it has been French policy to be with NATO but not a part of it. The general’s view was that there would be no European defence worth the name as long as European armies were locked into an alliance where the United States called all the shots. For the same reason, he sabotaged the birth of the European Defence Community in 1954. As a soldier and president, he was shocked by the weakening of loyalty to the government which he perceived among French generals at the time of the Putsch in Algeria. He blamed participation in NATO for this. Like his illustrious predecessor, Sarkozy has made it clear that he wants to build up European defences under European control. So why is he sending French troops to Afghanistan, of all places, and under NATO command? He made a surprise visit to the 1,900 French troops in Afghanistan, mostly on training missions, on December 17. Before the elections, he said he saw no reason for French troops to linger in the country. On his visit to Kabul, he changed tack completely, saying, “There is a war going on here, a war against terrorism, against fanaticism, that we cannot and will not lose.” Sarkozy must realise that many commentators would dispute practically every word of that sentence. Éric Margolis, the award-winning war correspondent and author of ‘War on top of the World’ is an expert on Afghanistan. He calls it a contested occupation of the territory of the Pushtuns rather than a war. It is more about oil pipelines from Central Asia than terrorism. Until the US invasion of Afghanistan, there was no known example of a suicide bombing by an Afghan. Nobody knows quite what winning means, but to say that we cannot lose seems optimistic. Obviously we can lose the war in Afghanistan, just as everybody else has, from Alexander the Great via the British Raj to the Soviets. And it may mean the end of NATO in its present form if and when we do. Sarkozy’s aims are no different from de Gaulle’s but he believes in the need to be on good terms with his American ally. Constant friction with the United States makes it difficult to get the growth in business and exports that France so desperately needs. The world’s greatest military and economic power has made it difficult for France internationally in the recent past. In the 10 months of Sarkozy’s presidency, France has stepped up its sales abroad of nuclear power stations. The previously unmarketable Rafale fighter aircraft is suddenly breaking into the North African defence market and the Pentagon has awarded EADS/Airbus a huge contract for refuelling planes for the American Air Force. Is it a coincidence that in the same period France has for the first time vigorously supported the United States against Iran and is now to prop up the ailing war effort in Afghanistan, despite the risk of attracting the undesirable attentions of Muslim terrorists? It looks as if a deal has been struck. Ironically, France has not antagonised the Russians while pleasing the Americans by fighting the Taliban. The Russians are happy to watch the West now struggling to achieve in Afghanistan what they failed to do, thanks in part, to Western sabotage. Sarkozy may be backing NATO to be friends with the United States but he does not want to upset the Russian government. Cooperation, particularly in aerospace, is very important. Russia is also a lot closer to Europe than America and is a vast, growing market. The French president is much more cautious about the US obsession with getting missiles into Poland and Czechoslovakia and getting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO against Russia’s wishes. His statement, that he would like France to become a full member of NATO once more, is qualified by the condition that in Europe at least, it must be a different NATO. In particular, the commander-in-chief should be a European… and why not a Frenchman? Sarkozy will be conducting a delicate balancing act at the April NATO summit conference in Romania, to be attended by both Bush and Putin. France has, for the first time, vigorously supported the United States against Iran and is now to prop up the ailing war effort in Afghanistan Sarkozy has made it clear that he wants to build up European defences under European control. So why is he sending troops to Afghanistan? |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
