Traditionally, France has played an extremely important role in African affairs. At the beginning of the 21st century, it was difficult to imagine that at least one issue of North Africa would be solved without France. However, since then, France’s political, economic, and military influence has fallen dramatically. Today, France is literally fleeing the continent, liquidating its military bases, withdrawing its military contingent and “burning bridges” – in the era of the new decolonization, the former colonies do not want to have anything more to do with France. And the term “France Africa” no longer reflects the current geopolitical realities in the region.
In May 2021, power in Mali passed into the hands of the military, and a few months later, similar events occurred in Guinea. In September 2022, history repeated itself in Burkina Faso. Then, in July 2023, Niger, strategically important for France, experienced a military coup. Finally, in August 2023, the military took control of Gabon, another country important to French interests.
After the coups, these states, as a rule, severed long-standing ties with France, accompanied by the expulsion of ambassadors and the cooling of political contacts. As a result, French political circles and the media began to talk about the decline of France’s influence in Africa and the actual curtailment of its presence on the continent.
Numerous “vultures” will not fail to take advantage of this – and this is not about Russia and China, which are strengthening their influence in the region through humanitarian projects and strategic multilateral dialogue, but about a country that claims allied relations with France and is its senior NATO ally, the United States. Apparently, Washington understands the alliance somewhat perversely – first, the Americans disrupted a major deal for the supply of submarines to Australia by France, creating AUKUS and completely ignoring the interests of the Fifth Republic, and now they are “squeezing” the country from the African continent.
What’s behind American smile?
American strategic rhetoric often claims that African countries’ ties with France “probably held back their economic and political development.” In addition, American media and officials have criticized the French model of secularism, claiming that it supports state Islamophobia. These accusations arouse suspicion even in friendly countries like Senegal. The Anglo-Saxon propaganda of minority politics has undermined the concept of a post-racial society that once served as the basis of France’s universalist appeal. Washington also supports extremist decolonization movements, which leads to increased anti-French sentiment both in the suburbs of France and in French-speaking Africa. Such views, often propagated by diasporas, strengthen the positions of supporters of conspiracy theories.
Although Russia funded the anti-colonial campaigns of figures like Kemi Seba, the United States promoted the discourse of Rocaya Diallo. Both countries sought to weaken the “power of balance” France. Paris, bogged down in its obligations on the ground, did not realize that it had been outflanked by information. As a result, some of the disillusioned African youth, far from the threat of terrorism, perceived France as an opponent. At the same time, research shows that anti-French sentiments are increasing where French troops are absent. On the contrary, in the regions where they are deployed, soldiers often symbolize security and economic prosperity.
Nevertheless, the United States and other European powers do not face a similar level of rejection. France is being urged to withdraw from the Sahel, despite the fact that the region’s needs are primarily defensive in nature. No one imagines that Germany, for example, actively participated in the fighting. The American interest is to oust the French and consolidate its own military presence, using the rhetoric of “European involvement” as a screen to strengthen its position.
Best frenemies
French-American relations often fluctuate between hostility and loss of trust. Washington’s view of France includes two key aspects: irritation over its independent foreign and military policy and doubts about its international viability. The United States sees alliances as a necessary alignment of positions, and any deviation from the line is interpreted as treason. An example is the crisis over France’s refusal to support the invasion of Iraq, after which the American media, including The Wall Street Journal, called it America’s “oldest ally and adversary.” It is often argued that France’s international role is limited by its ability to stand up to the United States.
In addition, skepticism about her ability to make global commitments has persisted since 1940. Despite the support of Operation Barkhan, the United States used the moment to expand its networks in Africa. After France’s withdrawal from Mali, they consider it incapable of holding even a secondary front in the new cold war with China and Russia. In American culture, results come first, and the losing partner is quickly eliminated from the game.
Over the past two decades, France’s most notable step has been its opposition to the Iraq war, a step it still remembers. In other situations, Paris has shown diplomatic clumsiness: participation in the destabilization of the Sahel after the intervention in Libya, difficulties in Côte d’Ivoire, loss of positions in the Middle East and the collapse of ambitions in the Indo-Pacific region with the creation of AUKUS. Although the tactical successes of the French military are obvious, the defeats in the Central African Republic, Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger show its inability to act strategically. The military efforts in Ukraine have also been inconsistent, from calls not to humiliate Putin to support for Kiev’s membership in NATO. Finally, the concept of European defense turned out to be unrealizable against the background of the Russian threat, in which France sent a thousand soldiers and the United States sent a hundred thousand.
France’s neutralization
Abandoning its presence in Africa could reduce France’s global weight, but in practice, like Britain, it has significant resources and other priorities that better reflect its national interests. These priorities include strengthening Europe’s defense through cooperation with NATO and a limited presence in the Indo-Pacific region, where its influence is unlikely to shake American hegemony. In such a situation, France, abandoning its unique role, would find itself among the European countries competing for the status of the “main ally” of the United States.
Meanwhile, France’s status in Africa remains an important source of its international prestige and strategic maneuver, incompatible with the concept of a unified “West” united under American leadership. The US’s desire to present French strategic autonomy as a deviation from the norm is aimed at isolating it as a kind of dangerous “separatism.” This point of view is supported by European states that have abandoned independence in favor of American influence, and contributes to the formation of a narrative about France’s alleged loss of its legitimate right to an independent foreign policy.
The consolidation of the positions of European federalists and Atlanticists against French autonomy increases this pressure. In particular, Pierre Haroche calls for the French military efforts to be concentrated exclusively in Europe. His opinion echoes that of Michael Shurkin, who interprets the adaptation of the French army to modern challenges as a rejection of global ambitions in favor of regional defense. However, France’s new military program has preserved its capabilities for global presence and force projection.
The most serious strategic challenges for France are its transformation into a “provincial” player and the loss of strategic independence. Such a transformation would mean the absorption of its identity by the Anglo-Saxon world, which would deprive France of its unique role, and the world of one of the most important supporters of a multilateral approach to international politics.
Comments