Is France damaging its own interests by buckling under pressure from the U.S. and NATO to halt delivery to Russia of two Mistral amphibious assault/helicopter carriers? Olivier Zajec of the French Institute of Strategy and Conflict insists that by not delivering the ships, Paris is damaging its credibility, undermining efforts to subdue the Islamic State, and rendering it impossible for French diplomacy to play the role of fair arbiter of peace in Ukraine.
For the news magazine Marianne, foreign affairs editor Régis Soubrouillard interviews Olivier Zajec. Here is an excerpt:
Marianne: France has suspended indefinitely delivery of the Mistral-class amphibious assault ship Vladivostok to Russia. What do you think of this decision and how do you see the strategic and economic consequences of not delivering these ships?
Olivier Zajec: I support delivery of this ship, and I fear that the postponement decided November 25 is at the same time impolitic, masochistic and discredits us. Impolitic because we have a long term interest in a more mature relationship with Russia, and going back on our word will not achieve that; masochistic, because we are weakening our defense industry – one of our most solid industrial assets; discrediting, because the added value of the French armaments available on the export market lies precisely in it being an alternative to American technological and normative subservience. This is what a customer like India is looking for. With this decision, which delights the paleo-Atlanticists, we are demonstrating our submission to strategic posturing that doesn’t serve our interests (and I do not speak exclusively of France, but of Europe).
Delivery of the Mistral would by no means prevent France from playing its role in the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, which absolutely must be resolved. On the contrary, in fact this demonstration of independence would give her the role of a third party, which would allow her to arbitrate on the grotesque brawl between those nostalgic for the USSR which one sometimes encounters at the Kremlin, and the hysterical Russophobes who seem to be in the ascendency at NATO. We should note all the same that many of those who have spoken out against this sale are the same ones who danced with joy at the American entry into Baghdad in 2003. In the absence of other qualities, we must recognize a certain consistency in their blindness.
Marianne: How do you assess the impact of the falling out with Moscow, notably with regard to negotiations with Iran or on Syria?
Olivier Zajec: Whether one rejoices in it or regrets it, Moscow is a major player in the Middle East game. Given the complexity of the regional puzzle and following the American impetus, François Hollande is on the verge, however ungracefully, of becoming a realist on the Iranian issue, which would have been out of the question just a short time ago. Since this welcome lucidity now applies to Tehran, which has again become an interlocutor, why not apply it – even for the time being – to Damascus, given the nature of our common enemy? Bashar al-Assad is not the immediate threat. Supplying arms to the Syrian Islamists was a major mistake of our diplomacy. Acting strategically means setting priorities and coordinating fronts: what would happen if today the Syrian regime collapsed? One need only look at post-Qaddafi Libya to understand. Military intervention may be a solution – it should never be excluded a priori, but on the condition that we never lose sight of the context of the engagement. “Air strikes” are not an end in themselves, but a timely and controlled prerequisite to a new and unstable balance of political forces.
READ ON IN ENGLISH OR FRENCH AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.
Founder and Managing Editor of Worldmeets.US