Sarkozy, Obama, and His Priorities
Published in Le Figaro
(France) on 31 March 2010
by Yves Thréard (link to original)
Nicolas Sarkozy’s trip to the United States had a reassuring character, almost like deliverance. On three burning issues of international politics, the French president and Barack Obama were able to demonstrate a convergence of views that was nevertheless not obvious from the outset.
Regarding Afghanistan, Iran and the regulation of capitalism, the two men seem today to be in sync, even if they conscientiously avoided engaging the thorny details. From this meeting, we will remember the display of friendship necessary to well-coordinated diplomatic relations. It was necessary to surmount past disagreements, dispel misunderstandings and chase away malicious rumors that dampened relations between the two heads of state.
It makes a fine photo for the family album. France needs the United States, and vice versa. Each agrees, affirms it and repeats it. But, beyond this, Paris and Washington have never entertained relations of strict ‘cronyism’ under the fifth republic: the French scrupulously guard their independence, the Americans guard their global ‘leadership.’ That was true of yesterday, and it will still be true tomorrow.
However, rarely have the two nations been so fundamentally close. This is first due to the personality of the two men that lead them. They are young, they have the same will to reform their respective countries, they display an identical desire to make their time in office remarkable. This is a profile that makes them comparable, and that, in fact, for the same reasons, makes them competitors.
Furthermore, the actions of the French president, once called “Sarkozy the American” due to his supposed orientation towards liberalism, are not weighed down by complexes, which is a typical trait of leaders from across the Atlantic.
On the occasion of Nicolas Sarkozy’s trip, the American press stressed that Obama did not have any friends on the international scene. But is this his major worry? Paris will never be an enemy. This stands in contrast to [Obama’s relation to] Beijing, whose new ambassador he received with enthusiasm in the hope of forging a “positive relation” with China. Thus betraying the order of his priorities.
Regarding Afghanistan, Iran and the regulation of capitalism, the two men seem today to be in sync, even if they conscientiously avoided engaging the thorny details. From this meeting, we will remember the display of friendship necessary to well-coordinated diplomatic relations. It was necessary to surmount past disagreements, dispel misunderstandings and chase away malicious rumors that dampened relations between the two heads of state.
It makes a fine photo for the family album. France needs the United States, and vice versa. Each agrees, affirms it and repeats it. But, beyond this, Paris and Washington have never entertained relations of strict ‘cronyism’ under the fifth republic: the French scrupulously guard their independence, the Americans guard their global ‘leadership.’ That was true of yesterday, and it will still be true tomorrow.
However, rarely have the two nations been so fundamentally close. This is first due to the personality of the two men that lead them. They are young, they have the same will to reform their respective countries, they display an identical desire to make their time in office remarkable. This is a profile that makes them comparable, and that, in fact, for the same reasons, makes them competitors.
Furthermore, the actions of the French president, once called “Sarkozy the American” due to his supposed orientation towards liberalism, are not weighed down by complexes, which is a typical trait of leaders from across the Atlantic.
On the occasion of Nicolas Sarkozy’s trip, the American press stressed that Obama did not have any friends on the international scene. But is this his major worry? Paris will never be an enemy. This stands in contrast to [Obama’s relation to] Beijing, whose new ambassador he received with enthusiasm in the hope of forging a “positive relation” with China. Thus betraying the order of his priorities.