Sailing into a Perfect Storm
The French election cycle and the looming American elections may well mean we are headed straight for serious trouble. Let me explain.
The steel core of the global security structure and the Western alliance is three-way relationship between France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. That alliance has had its ups and downs, but ultimately it has remained for many decades and keeps all the rest together. One reason is the collective hard power the three nuclear powers represent, not to mention their permanent seats in the UN Security Council and very similar strategic cultures that makes them relatively uninhibited regarding the use of military force. But perhaps more critically, the three tend to see the world similarly, and their interests mostly overlap. This is not to say their interests are identical, only that they share far more than otherwise.
Now, however, the alliance is under threat in two out of the three countries. In France, the first round of legislative elections has seen the rise of the French far-right Rassemblement National (RN—previously known as the Front National), and a leftist coalition, the New Popular Front (NFP, in French), that often is dominated by the far-left La France Insoumise (LFI). The big loser was President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist Renaissance party. At the very least, this means that Macron will have to “cohabitate” with an opposition majority perhaps until the end of his term in 2027. Worse, the RN’s strength makes many worry about the possibility that its leader Jordan Bardella or Marine Le Pen might win the presidency.
Meanwhile, in the United States, there is Trump. More on that below.
The problem in France is not just the rise of the RN but that of the left and the collapse of the center. Basically, in French politics, moderates and centrists historically have been pro-NATO, pro-American (or at least not anti-American), and generally in possession of strategic objectives that are at least congruent with American ones. This has been true of France’s traditionally dominant leftist party, the Socialists, as well as its mainstream right-wing parties. The farther one goes to the left or right, the more anti-American one becomes. The more hostile toward trans-Atlantic security, and, frankly, the more antisemitic.
If the New Popular Front (NFP) becomes the dominant force in French politics, it is hard to say what will happen given the diversity of parties in the coalition. Its program suggests a clear focus on domestic politics. With respect to national security and international affairs, the balance is mixed—and probably in reality much will depend on which parties and which individuals end up with meaningful influence. The NFP’s published platform calls for defending Ukraine, although LFI’s leader, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, has a mixed record in that regard. The platform is unequivocally hostile to Israel. But otherwise, the platform says nothing. This not surprising given that there is little NFP members can agree on. Those further to the left are anti-American and anti-NATO. They want France to withdrawal from NATO’s integrated command or walk away from the alliance altogether. The more moderate among them would maintain the status quo. One can assume increasing defense spending will not be a NFP priority given the long list of social spending on its agenda.
LFI leader Mélenchon: Loud-mouthed, anti-American, antisemite. A caricature of the French far-left.
As for the RN, it has tried to distance itself from its long-standing pro-Russian and pro-Putin stances, one it shares with far-right parties world-wide. Skepticism is merited. It wants nothing to do with NATO, or with strong bilateral programs such as France’s big sixth-generation fighter project with Germany, or its next-generation tank project, also with Germany. The RN desires industrial autarky, and a well-armed isolationism. As for Israel, the fact is that the RN, like other far-right groups, has long struggled with the question of whether its islamophobia should oblige it downgrade its antisemitism. Thus, many on the far-right are both anti-Arab AND antisemitic. The RN under Marine Le Pen has been trying to distance itself from its (and her family’s) antisemitic past (her father, party-founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, had a taste for Holocaust revisionism, among other things). Whether her efforts should be given any credence is another matter. A French Jewish friend has described the choice between LFI and RN as that between “cholera and the plague.”
Now let’s talk about Trump. We have to talk about Trump.
Trump is an isolationist who would kneecap NATO and trans-Atlantic security cooperation. He would abandon Ukraine to Putin, a man whom he appears to envy and wish to emulate. Is he pro-Israel? Yes, but also no. He’s not so-much an antisemite as he is a philosemite, the classic definition of which being an antisemite who likes Jews. What does that mean? It means he believes in stereotypes about Jews, e.g. Jews are cunning and good with money, but thinks that is a good thing. Jews are “shifty,” so he’ll hire them as his lawyers, but he’ll criticize them for it when they act against him. Hence “Shifty Schiff,” Trump’s name for Congressman Adam Schiff.
The problem with philosemites is that, for them, as with antisemites, Jews are more ideas than they are real people. Real Jews risk disappointing him. Hence Trump’s anger at Jews who do not support him, Jews he’s essentially attacked as ‘bad’ Jews.
Trump is bad enough. What’s happening in France is bad enough. The scary part is the two things combined. If both countries are led by people hostile to the Atlantic Alliance, it might not survive. Then we risk finding ourselves where we were in the 1920s and 1930s, at least with respect to international security. No, we don’t have another Nazi Germany to worry about or a Soviet Union (say what you will about Putin’s Russia), but in their stead are a host of resentful rising middle powers and, of course, China. The West needs to hold together. It needs unity. This won’t be possible if Paris and Washington fall to isolationists.