During his trip in the USA, the French President Nicolas Sarkozy strongly reaffirmed his willingness to restore the French-American friendship. French-American relations have always been fussy since De Gaulle. The French diplomacy since then has been built on the basis of an independent posture from Washington, thanks to French nuclear military capacities. Contrary to other American allies, Paris was not dependant on the US nuclear umbrella for its security, and was therefore in a position to take autonomous decisions, even when those decisions were conflicting with Washington point of view. Accordingly, France was frequently perceived as the “bad pupil” among the Atlantic classroom.

But actually, during the most severe international crisis, France sided with Washington. Its strategic autonomy allowed France to be as close as possible to the US, without risking to appear as a client. During the Berlin Wall crisis (1961), the Cuban missile crisis (1962) and the Euromissile crisis (during the eighties), the three main storms of the East-West struggle, France staunchly supported American positions. And in normal and more quiet times, France was an outspoken critic of the American behavior on the international stage.

With the Iraq war, France was for the first time in opposition with Washington in a major strategic event. The Americans felt betrayed. They considered that France was missing while they where under attack. Paris thought that war was more than a mistake: it was also a source of forthcoming insecurity, as if fuel was added on the very inflammable Middle-East. Ironically, nowadays, even in the USA, a great majority of people agrees to admit that the Iraqi war was a failure, whereas Jacques Chirac is still considered as an enemy. Even if he has accomplished many steps toward Americans since 2005 (common position on Lebanon and on Iranian crisis, participation to NATO military operations in Afghanistan, cooperation of secret services in the fight against terrorism). Still, he still a very negative image in USA. Sarkozy, even if he declared that Chirac was right on the Iraqi war, is popular in the USA. He repeatedly expressed his admiration for American society and values. He was nicknamed « Sarko l’Américain » and was proud of it.

During its speech on Capitol hill, he praised the American ego. He paid tribute for American interventions during World War I and II and the Cold War. He praised the fact that in these occasions, Americans did not acted for their own freedom, but for other nations’ freedom. This sounded sweet to American ears, who have a strong tendency to believe that, contrary to Europeans, their diplomacy is moral and dedicated to universal and not national interests. This is far from being real. The USA, as other nations, acted in favor of their national interests, even with universal wrapping up. If their intervention was decisive during the World Wars and the Cold War, they did not act in favor of the European or Asian allies but in order to respond to an attack or to counter the Soviet threat.

In the same mood he praised the fact that the world needs US leadership to fight against global warming. It was a polite way to point out the refusal of signing Kyoto protocol.

In France and abroad, some people are eager to see France giving up and showing allegiance to Washington. Others are fearful of such a perspective. For the time being, it is just to soon to know if these hopes and fears have any substance.

While some doubts have been raised regarding the future of the French military participation in the Afghan war (“French soldiers are not there for ever”, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared before the Presidential elections), Sarkozy pledged to stay in Afghanistan as long as necessary. He would probably have come to the conclusion that a French withdrawal would have been perceived as a betrayal by Washington and would be considered as a green light for other nations to withdraw. Even if nobody is optimistic as regards the future of military situation in Afghanistan, he chose the less dangerous between two evils by staying there.

As for the Israeli Palestinian conflict, he is considered as a friend by Israel. Nevertheless, he stated that the statu quo would only fuel terrorism and extremism; thus making a direct linkage between the perpetuation of the conflict and the expansion of extremism. Usually, Israeli friends deny any link between terrorism and the political situation. He stated again his opposition to the acquisition by Iran of nuclear weapons. But this declaration has been perceived as an help for the ones who in Washington are opposed to take military option proposed by the hawks. As far as NATO is concerned he proposed a deal : France could reintegrated NATO at the condition that an European pillar could be build. Reintegration would be a major change of French policy. But the europeanisation of NATO would be also a tremendous change of US policy which till now has always ruled out such possibility. As for Iran, by praising the North Korean example, he showed that the military solution is not the only or even the best option.

As a reminder, he balanced his position: ally but not aligned, a partner but a free one, a friend but who stands on his own two feet.