You are in:
- Archives » 2006 » January 2006
Chirac Polishes French Rockets
Quite a few people have got their knickers in a twist over President Jacques Chirac's declaration that France would consider a nuclear response to any country carrying out a state-sponsored terror attack against it. Never mind the fact that if George Bush or Tony Blair had threatened to nuke terror states there would be a global outcry, it's not exactly news: EURSOC reported that France was adjusting its nuclear doctrine to post-9/11 realities back in October 2003.
Back then, we covered mutterings in the French press that France's nuclear strategy was changing from its Gaullist concept of the weak opposing the strong. The Soviet Union might have been much more powerful that France and bristling with atomic weapons, but the prospect of retaliation would deter the Commies from marching down the Champs-Elysees. Or deter the Russian Commies, at least - French Communists marched wherever they liked.
The new doctrine was described as "the strong against the insane." France is infinitely better equipped than the world's numerous terror groups and rogue states, but one of those states (Hello, Iran) might be crazy enough to sponsor a terror outrage against France.
After the rumours appeared in the French press, the Elysee Palace issued a "partial" denial of the claims. Chirac's speech at a naval base yesterday, merely confirmed what France-watchers have known all along.
Only the Independent picks up on the wider implications of the speech, which has been dismissed in some quarters as the lame-duck president wrapping himself in military honours and sabre-rattling for support. It notes that Chirac's comments come after his rival Nicolas Sarkozy questioned why France, facing economic struggle and budget collapse, needs to spend billions on a nuclear deterrent. One might expect the left to be eager to dismantle France's nukes, he might say, but a man of the right - and the leader of the Gaullist UMP at that?
More interestingly, Chirac floated the idea that Britain and France's nuclear arsenals could be dedicated to provided Europe with a "nuclear umbrella." This is provocative stuff, assuming that he means that the doctrine of retaliatory attacks could be applied if other EU nations were struck by terror-state attacks. And he didn't only mean WMD attacks: "The leaders of states who use terrorist methods against us, as well as those who consider using in one way or another weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would expose themselves to a firm and appropriate response on our part," he warned.
Could France nuke Iran if this veteran terror sponsor could be linked to an attack in Italy, Spain, Poland? What about Syria, another terror sponsor, and one which has just publicly embraced Iran's dangerous Ahmadinejad regime?
If so, how much damage would a terror attack have to do to an EU ally to merit a French response - or, indeed, a nuclear response from Paris?
France's Communists grumble that Chirac is playing a dangerous game and may have raised the stakes in the nuclear standoff with Iran. As many French Communist Party members rather hoped to switch off France's nukes and invite the Red Army into town, their opinions of the current threat can be safely discounted. Nevertheless, Chirac's speech did point to the problem facing those such as Nicolas Sarkozy in France and Michael Portillo in Britain who question their state's need for a nuclear deterrent: If the world's worst states are tooling up, why should we give up our arms?
