Soccer Dad

A new new europe?

Last week Stephanie Levy wrote that whoever wins the presidency in France is likely to change the French foreign policy in the Middle East.

Both Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal, the candidates of the center-right and Socialists, respectively, have promised major shifts in France's stance on the Iranian, Lebanese, and Israeli-Palestinian issues if they win. They are reacting against the regime of outgoing President Jacques Chirac, who for 12 years--following in the footsteps of predecessors back to Charles de Gaulle--has allied with such Arab dictators as Yasir Arafat and Saddam Hussein. By making France the Arabs' favorite Western state, Chirac and other Gaullists have tried to create an alignment to counter the great--and in France, much-despised--primacy of the United States.

Yet many say this strategy has brought little benefit to France, either directly or in terms of making it a credible world power. There are many contradictions. For example, French policy seeks to protect Lebanon while refusing to regard Hizballah as a terrorist organization. Moreover, last January, Chirac stated that Iran's possession of nuclear bombs would "not be so dangerous," reversing previous official positions.

(I previously blogged about this item here.)

Now Anne Applebaum writes that if Sarkozy is elected there might be some even more basic changes in France.

To anyone steeped in the thousand-year history of Anglo-French enmity -- that bitter struggle over power, influence and the edibility of snails -- the highlight of France's presidential election campaign was surely the speech that Nicolas Sarkozy, the center-right candidate (and now the very precarious front-runner) gave this year in London. Standing in the heart of London's financial district, Sarkozy heaped compliments upon his country's historic enemy. The British capital was, he said, a "town that seems more and more prosperous and dynamic every time I come here." More important, it had become "one of the great French cities." He understood, furthermore, that hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen had moved to Britain because "they are risk-takers, and risk is a bad word" in France. With distinctly un-English passion (some things never change) he pleaded with them:

"Come home, because together we will make France a great country where everything will be possible, where fathers won't fear for the future of their children, and where everyone will be able to make their plans come true, and be responsible for their own destiny."

For now, though, it appears that Sarkozy's plea is falling on deaf ears.

Unfortunately, it seems that even a Sarkozy victory in the final round of voting on Sunday won't persuade all of the 2 million-plus French exiles to go home. Asked by a French polling company, TNS Sofres, "Are you satisfied with your life abroad?" 93 percent of French ?migr?s surveyed recently said "yes." Asked, "When do you expect to return to France?" 25 percent answered "never."

Still, Applebaum argues, it might be possible yet to get the expatriates back even in this Europe of open borders.

The political and economic consequences of this new mobility could be quite profound. Countries such as Poland and France may soon be forced to scrap those regulations and taxes that hamper employment, however much the French unions and the Polish bureaucracy want to keep them: If they don't, their young people won't come home. Leaders in those countries may also have to alter their rhetoric. Sarkozy's Socialist opponent, Ségolène Royal, now uses words such as "entrepreneurship" at least some of the time, too.

Applebaum writes that perhaps this is the beginning of a trend toward a new European.

I don't know a lot about Europe, but this analysis raises a couple of ironies and begs a question or two.

Irony 1) According to Applebaum the mobility provided by the EU may have the effect of creating a new Europe, which has more freedom and less regulation. Surely that wasn't the goal of the founders of the EU.

Irony 2) If this trend is real and the political in the U.S. continue in ten to fifteen years we might have a strong contingent of the politial class in Europe nostalgic for Ronald Reagan and in America its counterpart would be hankering for Jacque Chirac.

Question 1) Is the source for this apparent change a general realization that the old way aren't working? Or is it a reaction specifically to the growing and restive Muslim population?

Question 2) Mark Steyn has written about how Europe is in a suicidal decline. The combination of a failure to replace its population internally and an immigrant population that refuses to assimilate has made Eurabia a likely consequence. Is this a sign that Europe has regained its will? Is it too late?

Europe, Anne Applebaum