By Jeroen Bult
Not always natural allies, France and the Baltic states have a more nuanced relationship than their disagreements about Russia can suggest, says the Dutch historian and journalist Jeroen Bult.
Baltic deep.
“The visit that I am visiting your country is a visit from eternal France to eternal Russia. Since the very distant times when our two nations were born, they have never ceased to feel a special interest in and attraction to each other.”
These famous words were spoken by General De Gaulle in June 1966 during his visit to the Soviet Union. The stubborn French president thus wanted to emphasize France’s national sovereignty and its independent position in world politics and within the Western bloc. During the Cold War, France would remain a strong advocate of cordial relations with the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union is gone for too long, but this specifically French view of world politics has never disappeared. According to French decision-makers, the European part of the Western bloc should operate independently in the global arena and steer a middle course between the United States and Russia (and China). Paris, in close cooperation with Berlin, should take the lead in easing tensions with Moscow and reviving a constructive security dialogue with it.
But at the same time, France is anxious to take a strong grip on Germany’s policy towards Russia – German-Russian meetings have never been appreciated in Paris.
So it is hardly a surprise that French President Emmanuel Macron would like to continue a restoration of relations between Europe and Russia – how dissatisfied his Lithuanian and Latvian hosts may have been when he touched on the subject during his visits to Vilnius and Riga last week.
During the annual security conference in Munich in February, for example, Macron called for a “long-term” strategic dialogue with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. A few days earlier he had told the Poles that it would be “a great mistake to distance ourselves from a part of Europe with which we do not feel comfortable” – Russia.
Back in Paris, the president stated that “the main goal of my approach to Russia is to improve the conditions for Europe’s collective security and stability”. Macron even appointed a special “European” envoy – former ambassador to Washington Pierre Vimont – to give strategic dialogue impetus.
There is a big difference between now and the 1960s, when De Gaulle France was still the most important political player in Western Europe. The countries in the eastern part of the continent are no longer locked behind the Iron Curtain and have joined the EU and NATO.
Most have a complicated relationship with Russia, especially Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. There, the wounds of the past – the destructive incorporation into the totalitarian Soviet Union – have not yet healed. Russia also does not hesitate to rub salt in these wounds by repeating the old Soviet mantra of “the voluntary accession of the Baltic Sea to the Soviet Union in 1940”.
This also explains the rather petulant reactions in the Baltic states to Macron’s recent contemplations. Although Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausฤda said he supported the idea of โโa security dialogue with Russia, he warned his French counterpart of a possible disappointment “when it turns out that all efforts simply do not pay off” because Russia’s goals are completely different from France’s. .
Nor had Nausฤda forgotten one of Macron’s earlier provocative outbursts. In November 2019, the French leader NATO, which is considered by the Baltic states to be their life insurance against Russia, declared “brain dead”. It was probably no coincidence that during his joint media appearance with Macron, the Lithuanian president emphasized that “the United States’ commitment to our collective defense system is a critical factor.”
Other Baltic commentators have been less restrained. Back in February, when Macron launched his previous “Russia Offensive”, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a former president of Estonia, wrote on Twitter: “France’s population is 66 million, the population of the central and eastern EU members is 75 million. it’s time for CEE leaders to make this clear and stand up for their interests more confidently! “
Differences between France and the Baltic states are mainly related to two related issues: European military, “strategic” autonomy and Russia. Already in early 2003, in response to their unequivocal support for George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, French President Jacques Chirac infamously attacked Eastern Europeans, saying they “missed a good opportunity to remain silent”, sometimes translated as close up “. Mart Laar, a former prime minister of Estonia, then sent an angry article to The Wall Street Journal in which he put Chirac’s remark on a par with the “ukazes” of the Soviet bigots to their vassal regimes.
It seems that France and the Baltic states have never become true, natural allies. The French-Baltic relations, however, deserve to be seen in a broader light of historical facts. As an old European superpower with a sense of grandeur, France has a habit of passing smaller countries and directly cooperating with other great powers.
It can be annoying – it was quite embarrassing when the foreign ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in November 1990 were at the end of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE, now OSCE) in Paris. moment urged by France to leave the conference room, as Soviet President Gorbachev “may be upset”.
And Macron should have coordinated its takeovers to Russia earlier this year with the suspected Eastern EU partners. Still, France is not a cold-blooded poker player eager to sell Eastern Europe to Russia. In its political extinction, it can show remarkable firmness, perseverance and reliability in defending basic Western principles.
France never recognized the Soviet annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The Banque de France took care of the gold reserves of the central banks of Latvia and Lithuania. Contrary to what the British and Swedish counterparts did, the French central bank categorically rejected all Soviet requests to “return” the gold – which would only be handed over to Latvia and Lithuania again soon after the restoration of their independence.
In July 1975, the same day as the Helsinki Accords were signed, an event marking the climax between the Soviet Union and the West, President Giscard d’Estaing declared that [the Accords] does not suggest recognition of situations that have not been recognized elsewhere “- a reference to the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states.
In addition, Chirac’s “silence” remark follows a rather different statement he had made during a visit to Riga in July 2001: “If Latvia’s independence is threatened, not only France but the entire international community, starting with the EU, will be on Latvia’s side. . “
Chirac was also the first major Western European leader to explicitly advocate for NATO enlargement to the Baltic states (after it became clear that the Bush administration would push through). “The Baltic states have freely decided to integrate with NATO. Since it is their choice, it is therefore legitimate,” he added. A Baltic politician would not have put it differently.
When, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its hybrid intervention in eastern Ukraine in 2014, NATO decided to support the Baltic states, France did not hesitate to send troops to Estonia.
Macron’s statements are not naive either. In Munich, he asked how long Russia would be able to afford its military build-up given the size of its economy. Russia, Macron continued, is a huge country facing a serious demographic situation. It needs allies, but an alliance with China will not be sustainable: “Chinese hegemony is not compatible with Russia’s sense of pride.”
Concluding his public lecture, Macron pointed out that although it would be better to divide and destabilize the EU, vulnerable Russia will eventually have no choice but to participate in some form of European security architecture.
But Macron’s long-awaited strategic dialogue with Russia can wait. First and foremost, he should enter into a strategic dialogue with his allies in Eastern Europe. There is much they – including Lithuania, an older nation than eternal Russia – could teach France about the repressive lineage in Belarus and the incessant instability in Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucasus, about the aftershocks after the collapse of the Soviet Union. feel. Mr President, appoint a special envoy for Eastern Europe!
Jeroen Bult is a Dutch historian and publicist, specializing in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Source: sn.dk