In their discussion last week on American Francophobia, Peter and Jonah missed the greatest reason for why Americans ought be skeptical of French foreign policy: not necessarily because of French delusions of grandeur or attempts to place themselves as the benevolent alternative to American hegemony, but because the French foreign policy establishment is still nakedly imperialistic in its outlook. It has not moved past the nineteenth century [bold mine-DL]. Indeed, French foreign policy elites refer to Africa as “le pré carré,” or “backyard.” ~James Kirchick

It isn’t at all clear that “naked imperialism” would merit much condemnation from at least one of those two, except on the principle that what counts as imperialism for other states counts as “leadership” for our government and the two are therefore incomparable.  This last item is the least damning part of what is an otherwise correct description of French foreign policy.  Calling this or that region “the backyard” may be a lousy way to think of one’s neighbouring countries and/or continents (I think it is), but I would wager that a sizeable number of Americans, perhaps a majority, views Latin America in exactly the same way.  Of course, many of our policies towards certain parts of Latin America are forms of imperialism that aren’t wearing much, if they are wearing anything at all, but that is a problem with the policies and not so much with the attitude.  (Yes, you can say that the policies would be less likely if the attitude didn’t exist, but it is hardly the thing that clinches the argument.)  This is not to praise French policy, which in Rwanda was obviously grossly negligent and criminal, but to remind everyone that they are hardly any more guilty than many of their competitors.  I tend to resist the widespread urge to sit in judgement of the French, not because the French are so great, but because those who would be their judges are not, at least on the level of government, doing any better than they are and in many cases are doing far worse. 

Mr. Kirchick says that France’s foreign policy establishment has not yet left the 19th century.  In truth, neither have we, except that we only entered the Europeans’ 19th century at the very end of the actual 19th century with respect to overseas colonies.  For instance, the Phillipines gained independence in 1945, Algeria in 1962–they saved their brutal anti-independence counterinsurgency for the end, while we made sure to get ours in right away.  Unlike the French, we are back in the Phillipines in some real military capacity after a relatively brief departure from our naval base at Subo Bay.  The current Filipino government is as reliable a lackey to Washington as any hegemon could want–Paris can only dream of having such extensive control over the foreign policy of a former colony that is not a complete basketcase (see Cote d’Ivoire). 

France insists on tying itself to rather nasty regimes around Africa and the Near East because the wars of independence and the rest of the decolonisation process reduced France to a lesser power than it had been in centuries (albeit a lesser power that acquired nukes).  It may not be desirable, and it may be quite ugly, but the French elites can at least make more plausible, albeit morally dubious, arguments that they are serving their national interest than can our political class.  There should, of course, be no illusions about what any other state is trying to do.  What we should avoid are those illusions that tell us that their conduct of foreign affairs is necessarily or obviously our business, unless there is some clear reason to think that it is.  (This is why, incidentally, I cannot understand why Western papers are getting so excited about the Estonia-Russia business, except to perpetuate anti-Russian hysteria among their readers.) 

One important point is that Americans should always be skeptical of any government’s foreign policy, including their own government’s foreign policy.  These policies are not being carried out to bring about the unity and brotherhood of man, after all.  These policies are being carried out to advance this or that nation’s interests first and foremost (it’s an interesting idea that we might want to try out for a little while), and this involves wielding power.  If France is wielding its power abroad, it very well may be pursuing goals contrary to the interests of the United States.  In my estimation, the true national interests of the two nations do not routinely or irreconcilably conflict and seem to converge at many points, which is why it still makes sense to regard France as an ally and a valuable one at that.  Something that troubles some interventionists greatly is the idea that allies are sovereign states that may act according to their own lights.  Sometimes allies go wrong and Washington should try to guide them away from the precipice, just as we would hope they would do for us and sometimes have done for us (in their own interests, obviously) when our government has gone a bit funny in the head.