Macron’s flawed diplomacy in China

This is an audio transcript of the Rachman Review podcast episode: ‘Macron’s flawed diplomacy in China’

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Gideon Rachman
Hello and welcome to the Rachman Review. I’m Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs commentator of the Financial Times. This week’s podcast is about France. Emmanuel Macron has just returned from a visit to China, where he was received with great pomp and ceremony, but remarks that the French president made on his flight home, particularly about Taiwan, have stirred international controversy. Meanwhile, back home, Macron continues to face demonstrations and strikes that have sometimes spilled over into violence as millions have taken to the streets to protest against his plan to raise the age at which French people retire. My guest this week is Célia Belin, head of the Paris office of the European Council on Foreign Relations and an expert on transatlantic relations. So is President Emmanuel Macron in trouble or is this just strong leadership in action?

[MUSIC PLAYING]

When the Chinese want to lay out the red carpet, they certainly know how to do it. Emmanuel Macron left a Paris beset by demonstrations and a garbage strike to be met with full honours by President Xi Jinping in Beijing. The French president was accompanied by a large party of businesspeople which sent a message that was very welcome to his Chinese hosts. But at a time when there’s lots of talk about economic decoupling between China and the west, France at least remains very interested in the Chinese market. On his way home, Macron also made remarks that would have been music to the ears of President Xi. As China prepared to blockade Taiwan and stage mock bombing raids over the island, Macron told interviewers that Europe should avoid entanglement in crises that are not ours. He also reiterated his familiar calls for greater European sovereignty to make the EU less dependent on the United States. The French president was due to elaborate on these themes in a big speech in the Netherlands, which took place shortly after I spoke to Célia Belin. His current enthusiasm for foreign travel may have something to do with the political and social turmoil back home.

[SOUND OF PROTESTS AND PEOPLE CHANTING]

And of course, any country’s international standing is affected by its own domestic strength and stability. I started my conversation with Célia Belin by talking about the French president’s China visit. Was it a success or had Macron’s controversial comments on Taiwan and the US backfired?

Célia Belin
We have to assume that President Macron’s visit to China was not a success internationally, if only for the fact that you had massive reactions across Europe, not only in expert circles, but even in the political circles against the interview that he gave on the flight back from China. And that after a few days during which it was already underlined that in spite of the fact that Macron was able to have, you know, interesting economic conversations with the Chinese leader, in spite of the fact that there was a cultural outreach to China, that there was some conversation on Ukraine and some reaffirmation that China should not send weapons to Russia. Despite that fact, it was also already viewed as somewhat imbalanced compared to the role of Ursula von der Leyen, who was affirming a more pro-European, pro-transatlanticist stance. And Macron appeared already a little bit on the back foot, but then doubled down with the interview that he gave to French media and other medias on the plane going back home.

Gideon Rachman
Yeah, I’m interested that you highlight the European reaction because, of course, Macron spoke very much as if he was speaking for Europe, both in China and on the interview on the plane back home. It was all about what Europe needs to do. But do you think that, particularly in his relationship with Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, who, as you point out, was accompanying him to Beijing but had made a more hardline speech shortly before, that he’s actually in danger of widening divisions in Europe or has done so.

Célia Belin
I don’t think the French president believes he’s speaking on behalf of Europe. I think he’s just laying out his own vision for Europe. He has been talking about European strategic autonomy, European sovereignty for as long as he’s been elected. Now, he believes that he’s just laying out his vision and that his vision is catching on.

There’s two fundamental problem in my view here. There’s a problem with the message and there’s a problem with the messenger. The problem with the message is that it was poor timing, given the military exercises that China launched the day after, to have the feeling that within the context of increased tensions around Taiwan, France was portraying Europe as being removed from the crisis as not taking a strong stance on this crisis. It’s a problem of message in the context of the Ukraine war and the type of unity we need to have in Europe.

And it’s also a problem of messenger, because in the end, the French president is always suspect of promoting European autonomy, as an opposition to transatlantic solidarity and transatlantic strength. And given this suspicion, when the French president lays out this vision once again, it really gives us flashback to other instances where you had the same type of provocations by the French president. I’m thinking about his comments on Nato being brain-dead in November 2019. Or he’s pushing for a dialogue with Russia or saying that Europe should not humiliate Russia at a moment of European unity on Ukraine. And so it feels very much like the Russia mistake all over again, but this time with China.

Gideon Rachman
Yeah. Well, taking those two points, you said the message and the messenger — let’s talk about both of them. To me, one of the difficulties, in some ways it’s kind of a traditional French message, as you say, but it was odd for Macron to say we shouldn’t get involved in crises that are not ours. Taiwan, at the same time as Europeans and the French amongst them are saying to the world, look, Ukraine is a global problem. And also, odd to distance himself from the United States at a time when the United States is doing most of the military support for Ukraine. How does he address those tensions in his argument?

Célia Belin
Well, I think there’s, in his view, potentially a strategic vision. He is convinced of the fact that Europe needs to have a strong autonomous voice in the world and that it’s not in Europe’s long-term interest to follow the United States in its strategic path, in particular in escalating the tensions with China.

There’s also may be a consideration that Macron had in mind that he has big global ambition, transnational priorities that he wants to discuss with the Chinese, for example, his ambition on restructuring the international financial architecture. And you know that France is hosting a summit for a new global pact at the end of June, and he needs the Chinese to be on board to rethink the financial architecture, in particular dealing with the debt of vulnerable countries. And so he might have had the impression that reaffirming Chinese interest on Taiwan and having this conversation on not picking a bloc was one way for him to engage China.

And then he potentially also has political reasons for saying what he says. He’s talking very strong, in his view, Gaullist message, talking maybe to the right of the electorate that, you know, has some anti-American instincts and continues to believe that France needs to have an independent voice on the global stage.

Gideon Rachman
Celia, you know Washington very well. You worked there for some time. What, in your view, is the likely American reaction to this? I mean, their official comments have been to play this down and Franco-American relations are just recovering from the shock of Aukus when France briefly even withdrew its ambassador from Washington. Do you think the Americans will shrug this off or do you think they’ll be very concerned?

Célia Belin
We’ve already seen very strong reactions, for example, from Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who questioned whether Macron was speaking on behalf of Europe and saying that if it is so, then the United States need to clarify their positions on Ukraine if Europe is not able to take a strong stance on Taiwan. And we have seen criticism of Macron’s views in expert circles. The administration itself is more careful, does not want to pick a fight when there’s no need.

The question in the end is, do they believe that Macron represents a big pillar of Europeans’ global perspective and therefore needs to be discussed? Or do they believe that the French president’s vision is actually isolated in Europe and therefore they don’t really need to fight it? And that’s where I feel this French position is a problem mainly for France because it’s not maximising French interests in Europe. It is going counter to the main conversation of the day, weakening deterrence on Taiwan by making appear that there could be a daylight between Europe and the US. But also, by and large, Europeans have gone across the world saying that defending Ukraine is a logic of defending territorial integrity, defending a nation’s sovereignty, etc. And by weakening that logic, Macron is not helping European interests either. So by and large, I believe Americans will not be pleased. I don’t expect them necessarily to react extremely strongly to this if they feel that the rest of Europe is not supportive of Macron’s views.

Gideon Rachman
Well, we’ll see how supportive the rest of Europe is, I guess, in the coming months. But just a last question on Macron himself, because obviously when he makes comments like this, he comes in for personal criticism and you alluded to it earlier. Do you think he’s kind of overconfident in his ability to play this big strategic game because the Russia reset really didn’t work and looks pretty bad in retrospect? And there does seem to be a danger that he’s being played by the Chinese. And also perhaps I saw one French commentator saying that, you know, his interview with Les Echos and Politico was very interesting if it came from a sort of professor. But as president of France, he can’t afford to be quite so open and speculative when every word that he says has international import.

Célia Belin
You’re absolutely right. We have seen this in the past that Emmanuel Macron tends to talk as a commentator rather than as a man of action. So it’s a vision, but he’s not applying it as a strategic leader. And it’s something we’ve seen repeatedly over the years. Emmanuel Macron, in the end, is not very disciplined. He’s not following, you know, the recommendations of what he has called in the past, in 2019, the “deep state”, which is his own diplomatic corps and other administrative support. Macron is an impatient pragmatist. He’s impatient in the way that he believes he needs to have a vision for every topic. He needs to advance very quickly and be present on reforming the World Bank or discussing Taiwan’s fate or travelling to Africa or supporting the energy transition or other topics.

But at the same time, he’s a pragmatist, and some would say that he values the interest that he sees at the moment as an interesting political positioning, you know. So he saw an opening in this China visit to project France and to project an independent voice. But he was not looking at the strategic interest of such a visit. It’s not well co-ordinated with European allies. It does not advance a general European interest. But that’s a Macron signature: to be willing to take risks, to be willing to put your ideas out there, even if actually they have a very poor reception, he doesn’t mind as much. That’s the paradox of this, because he believes he has laid out his vision for the world to discuss.

Gideon Rachman
And of course, it’s interesting that, you know, we’re talking about the global reaction to the way he’s behaved and spoken. But it comes at a time when there does seem to be a big domestic political reaction against him with this pension reform, which again, I mean you know, I’m sure many economists would say is necessary to balance France’s books in the long run, raising the pension age from 62 to 64. But it seems to have crystallised a lot of the latent anger that many of the French population seem to feel towards their president and these accusations that he’s arrogant.

Célia Belin
Yes. President Macron is experiencing a difficult domestic political situation. He had a strong popular support for his own re-election but his party was not able to gain a full majority in the National Assembly and therefore, he has had to rule with his prime minister on a coalition basis, trying to find consensus with other parties, in particular Les Républicains, the rightwing party, but also trying to rally some other more independents, moderates, maybe moderate leftists that could vote for projects in common. And by and large, this has proven extremely difficult. So the government, in order to pass some reform, have been using constitutional possibilities, such as Article 49-3, that allows the government to pass a legislative text into law while facing a no-confidence vote immediately after. So that was used for the pensions reform as well. And this time around you’ve seen many protests in the street and a lot of mobilisation from trades union prior to the decision to pass it into law. You’ve had a sort of inflammated situation and a very tense situation, including for his prime minister. So, yes, you know, the home front is not that much better, but it’s the direct results of the difficult division of power currently happening at the National Assembly.

Gideon Rachman
Do you think that Macron will be able to just ride it out and get through this without too much more damage? I mean, as I understand it, as you say, he’s passed these reforms through this special constitutional procedure, but the demonstrations are continuing. I mean, I think this podcast will go out in a couple of days when there’s another national strike scheduled, another garbage strike in Paris. Are we looking at another kind of gilets jaunes moment where you have these rolling social protests, or do you think Macron, his advisors maybe will get away with this and things will calm down?

Célia Belin
Things might come down on the streets. The number of protesters in the subsequent protests has decreased. You don’t have the same type of mobilisation. What’s really happening at the moment is that you have a form of massive general disillusionment on the capacity of any of the mobilisation, whether it’s through trades union mobilisation or, you know, protesting in the street really makes any difference. And so if you look at this situation quite cynically, you may consider that, you know, the president has pushed the reform through and he might be in a position to win his bets. And he has not changed his prime minister, might be in the position to keep her in power and will not dissolve the Assembly. All the other scenarios that we had imagined that could come out of the crisis have not happened.

The issue is, does he still keep a strong political legitimacy out of it? And the political legitimacy will be useful for future reforms. The government is thinking about immigration reform, other types of reforms that are needed. And then what does it mean for the structuring of the opposition against Macron or against Macron’s agenda? So he might be in a position to continue governing as he did before. But immediately after the crisis there was a couple of polling on how French people viewed his main opponent, far-right leader Marine Le Pen, and she has taken a boost out of the situation. And so, unfortunately, what’s looming behind this frustration of the street in being unable to make a difference in Macron’s calculation is a refuge into abstention or refuging to populism that we’ve been talking for years about. But little by little, the margins for Marine Le Pen are increasing. And, you know, it’s a prospect that everyone in France is starting to imagine and fear.

Gideon Rachman
So, in fact, that kind of neatly, if slightly alarmingly, ties together the foreign and the domestic parts of this, because I guess one of the paradoxes of all this, for all the discontent that Macron has stirred with these comments in parts of Europe and parts of the United States, it’s probably worth remembering that actually he’s closer to the international mainstream on Russia and on China than Marine Le Pen or indeed the far left than Mélenchon would be and that a France led by either of those two would really depart from the European mainstream.

Célia Belin
Absolutely. There’s no question about it. When it comes down to take strong decisions with the rest of Europeans on the sanctions package, on reinforcing, you know, Nato’s mission, Nato’s forward presence in the east, when it comes to reforming the European Union, when it comes to supporting Ukraine accession to the EU, Macron by and large and his government and his diplomacy have been on the side of Ukraine, have been part of this transatlantic unity of purpose and solidarity.

So that’s where you have a paradox. You know, why spoil some of this good faith that has been won in Europe by always pushing the conversation almost one step too far? That’s what Macron is doing. And by doing so, he’s not advancing French interest. And I don’t believe he’s advancing European interest either. So, you know, you’re right, there is a similarity between the domestic and the foreign situation that Macron doesn’t mind being against all others as long as he believes he’s right and that he believes that in the end, long term, very much long term, everybody will see that he’s right, that it’s possible that, you know, the legacy long term will be in his favour. But in the short term, you have a French population that has high level of frustration for those who feel that the president is tone deaf to their arguments and interests. And then you have a similar situation in Europe where you might be advancing a conversation, but facing a lot of opposition as well.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Gideon Rachman
That was Célia Belin of the European Council on Foreign Relations speaking from Paris and ending this edition of the Rachman Review. Thanks for listening. Please join me again next week.

[MUSIC PLAYING]