Two Perspectives on the Complex World Of Franco-American Diplomacy by John Shaw Few comments are more likely to elicit the obligatory chuckle at a foreign policy conference in Washington than a swipe at the French as contrarian, combative and just plain difficult. And no doubt, few international policy conferences take place in Paris that donít include some shots at the United States as a self-indulgent and sometimes reckless superpower with a vacuous popular culture. The United States and France had a wary, uneasy relationship throughout the Cold War. The political distance between the two countries has narrowed appreciably since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, but it is unclear how long this tranquility will last. Those trying to better understand the vagaries and intricacies of the relationship between the United States and France would profit from reading two new works. "France in an Age of Globalization" is a book in which French Foreign Minister Hubert VÈdrine responds to questions from Dominique MoÔsi, an author and deputy director at the French Institute for International Relations. "French Negotiating Style" is a special report by the United States Institute for Peace. The USIP report was published in 2001 and is a summary of a conference held last year with American and French academic experts and policy practitioners. These two works provide interesting perspectives on the American-French relationship. "France in an Age of Globalization," published by the Brookings Institution Press this year, is an update of a book that was published last year in France: "Les cartes de la France a líheure de la mondialisation (Franceís Assets in an Age of Globalization)." VÈdrine, Franceís foreign minister since 1997, was the chief of staff and spokesman for French President FranÁois Mitterrand. "France in an Age of Globalization" is a provocative book in many respects, but three themes are especially illuminating: VÈdrineís view of the global political configuration, his assessment of Franceís place in the world, and his observations about the nature of the U.S.-Franco relationship. In VÈdrineís view, the United States stands alone as the worldís unchallenged superpower. Then there is a small group of globally influential powers that includes France, Great Britain, Russia, China, Japan, Germany and India. Then there is an assortment of about 30 middle powers such as Australia, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico and Nigeria. This is followed by a larger group of modest powers and finally a group of faltering "pseudo-states." VÈdrine describes France as a "great country" and a "major player" with important assets that allow it to be a force in global affairs. Franceís relatively large population, modern economy and rich cultural and historical traditions give it prestige across the world, he argues. Although he declares that the age of globalization poses very difficult challenges for France. "But letís admit it: globalization does not automatically benefit France," he writes. "Globalization develops according to principles that correspond neither to French tradition nor to French culture: the ultraliberal market economy, mistrust of the state, individualism removed from the republican tradition, the inevitable re-enforcement of the universal and ëindispensableí role of the United States, Common Law, the English language, Anglo Saxon norms and Protestantómore than Catholicóconcepts." According to VÈdrine, Franceís power, influence and position in todayís world must be defended and enhanced by forward-leaning policies and creative diplomacy. It is Franceís role, he declares, to civilize globalization. France must strive to preserve its vital interests, promote global rules and norms, preserve diversity, reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor and promote "solid" democratization, he also writes. VÈdrine depicts the United States as not just a superpower but as a hyperpower. The United States, he says, is predominant in virtually all areas of national power: economic, technological, military, monetary, linguistic and cultural. "This situation is unprecedented: what previous empire subjugated the entire world, including its adversaries," he asks. "America today is much more than the British Empire and closer to what the Roman Empire was compared to the rest of the world in that era. Maybe not in terms of duration, but surely in terms of universality and influence Ö American globalism Ö dominates everything everywhere. Not in a harsh, repressive military form, but in peopleís heads," he writes. VÈdrine says that one of Franceís major challenges is to respect American vitality and join it in the "adventure of globalization" without losing its national identity. France must perform a delicate but essential balancing act. "We should be capable of saying yes when itís in our interest to do so, notwithstanding those who gauge our diplomacy according to the sole criterion of how much disagreement it creates with Washington. And I think we should also be able to say no when thatís in our interestówhen our view of the world is differentówithout it being a big deal," he adds. He strongly disputes the notion that France is reflexively critical of the United States. "Some analysts seem to think that French policy consists of systematic opposition to the United States in a vain hope of recovering Franceís past glory. Believe me, thatís not our obsession," he writes. A different perspective on the U.S.-Franco relationship is presented in the study by the U.S. Institute of Peace on Franceís negotiating style. It notes that France and the United States have been allies for more than two centuries but adds that in the last 60 years differences between the two nations have grown increasingly apparent. "Although France and the United States are allies, most of the Cold War was marked by French efforts to find an alternative to the duality of the bipolar international system. Friction remains a constant part of bilateral relations, although history has proven France to be a good ally in times of crisis," it says. The USIP report argues that the French are uncomfortable with American power and hegemony. "The French rankle under American leadership in the international arena. Believing that the United States too often fails to genuinely consult with its European allies, France frequently challenges the United States, contributing to the French reputation as a spoiler in international affairs. France seeks international legitimacy by adopting positions in opposition to the United States. It prefers not to passively accept American positions or American unilateralism, but rather to achieve its ends by occasionally allowing negotiations to fail or by making what it perceives as an independent decision rather than acting out of loyalty to the United States," it argues. The report notes that France has official positions on virtually all international issues but lacks the influence and resources to ensure that its positions prevail in the international arena. Providing a backdrop to Franceís international negotiating posture, the USIP report says the French educational system remains intrinsically elitist, and many national advisers have graduated from either the National Administration School, LíInstitut dí...tudes Politiques or Lí...cole Polytechnique. It is common for French diplomats, particularly ambassadors, to descend from aristocracy. It argues that the training and personal characteristics of French negotiators are potentially important variables when explaining Franceís negotiating behavior. The report identifies three characteristics of French diplomacy: a relentless defense of principle, a sense of Franceís exalted history and Franceís difficulty in implementing its goals in the current international scene. The report says that in negotiations the French are more inclined to haggle over words than the Americans are. "Despite their flexibility, the French take language more seriously than most AmericansÖ As a global power, the United States can ultimately decide to relent on language without feeling it has lost anything of importance. The French are more likely to take a hard line and not concede until they have no option but to back off. When misused, such tactics can damage Franceís ability to attain its strategic goals," it says. Examining Franceís often-stormy relationship with NATO, the report argues that France frequently takes tough, even extreme positions, and holds firm until the end when it strikes a mpromise. "The French seem to regard the potential dangers of being isolated as worth it. They fight hard for perceived interests and do not apologize for it," it says. The USIP report notes that the French battled with the United States in the mid-1990s over the leadership of NATOís Southern Command, with France pushing for a European to lead it. The United States insisted on an American commander and ultimately prevailed. France also battled with the United States over the issue of NATO expansion. France was not enthusiastic about the expansion, but when it became clear that it was going to happen, it shifted gears and sought to influence what nations were admitted into the alliance. "Any summary of French negotiating behavior with respect to NATO must stress the importance placed on clarity of position, the emphasis on pushing for that position until it is either accepted or no longer viable and the effort made to ensure that France does not leave the bargaining table without gaining something for its trouble," it states. Assessing Franceís international posture, the report notes that the realities of Franceís position lead the French to adopt bargaining tactics that seek to maximize their influence, often frustrating their interlocutors and sometimes resulting in unsuccessful negotiations even with friends and allies. But it adds that for all of the difficulties France has caused the United States, it can depend on France during difficult times. "In the U.S. view, the French have developed a reputation for being difficult partners in times of peace, yet reliable allies in times of crisis," the USIP report says. John Shaw is a contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat.