France's withdrawal from the alliance could be the beginning of its collapse. In an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda, the famous European politician, leader of the National Front of France, Marine Le Pen, said that if she wins the upcoming presidential elections, she will withdraw the country from NATO.
“It must be stated that in present moment France follows the NATO line, the publication quotes Marine Le Pen. - If elected, I will withdraw France from NATO. Because at the moment France has lost its own voice, we are fully adapting and following orders coming from Washington. Sometimes orders come from Berlin. France seems to be stretched between orders from Washington and Berlin.
Taking into account the fact that today France simply follows the position of Washington, there are serious concerns about how France may behave in the situation with Ukraine.”
It should be noted that against the background of the French dissatisfaction with the weak-willed pro-American policy of President Francois Hollande, Marine Le Pen has really good chances of becoming the new head of France. And with the North Atlantic Alliance, Paris has always had problems simple relationships. Is a French demarche possible in principle? If possible, how will this move affect the future of NATO?
France has more than once behaved very freely in relation to NATO, says Colonel General, full member of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems Leonid Ivashov. - The country was leaving military structure bloc, expelled the organization’s headquarters from its territory. Anti-NATO sentiments are quite strong here, both among the political community and directly in military circles.
I have had occasion to observe more than once that French officers At official NATO events they keep to themselves. They often object to France being drawn into various kinds NATO adventures.
The French generally don't like Americans. The history of this dislike goes back to the era of General de Gaulle, who sought to weaken the influence of the United States on France. The French have not forgotten this “spirit of independence” from the Americans. And the fact that the last two presidents of the country were completely pro-American causes discontent among a significant part of French society. Therefore, Marine Le Pen really has a good chance of becoming the head of France. In this case, it can use De Gaulle’s old recipe: without breaking political ties with NATO, refuse military cooperation with it.
“SP”: - What will the North Atlantic Alliance lose from this?
I recently received information that the European Commission recommended that European banks leave not only Ukraine, but also the Baltic states. This means that the main Western countries are economically abandoning their allies to the mercy of fate. And this, of course, will not strengthen NATO’s position in Europe, and in particular in its eastern part.
If France leaves the alliance, the main burden on the European segment of NATO will fall on Germany. And we know that Germany has repeatedly tried to create some kind of European security forces. And if previously all these attempts were suppressed by the United States, now the outcome may be different. In any case, there is a very high probability that NATO will falter.
After all, the alliance today is an instrument of the global financial oligarchy. All more people They understand that such a military monster as NATO is not needed to protect against terrorist and other threats. There are no forces in the world now that would suddenly want to occupy some Western country. Awareness of this will grow in both Europe and the United States. Many people will think: why do we need NATO? In general, France's withdrawal from the alliance could be primarily a political blow.
"SP": - How can they influence Ukrainian events to a NATO fortress?
After World War II, Americans became accustomed to acting on foreign territories and, often, with the wrong hands. They are happy to organize wars and revolutions away from their borders. Europeans understand that it is the United States that is interested in instability in Ukraine. Thus, the Americans hope to create a quarrel between Ukraine and Russia. And at the same time, it will further complicate economic cooperation between Russia and the EU.
But since the leadership of the majority European countries takes a clearly pro-American position, they follow instructions from Washington - often to the detriment of national interests own states.
France has not been a member for about 30 years military organization NATO, says the editorial director military information ITAR-TASS Viktor Litovkin. - In terms of weakening its military potential, its new demarche will not have much impact on the alliance. We can say that this decision will affect mainly France itself. The main advantage for the country is that Washington will no longer be able to drag it into its military adventures. France's foreign policy interests are mainly concentrated in Africa. At the same time, France has to follow in the footsteps of the United States and NATO, which have declared the entire world to be their sphere of interest.
Therefore, Marine Le Pen’s idea is understandable and justified. The only question is whether she will be allowed to become president.
"SP": - Can we say that such a loud statement by a popular European politician - alarm bell for NATO?
Of course, many European countries are unhappy with this organization. The United States imposes its policy on NATO, and through it on its member countries, and forces it to act in its direction. But it is important to take into account that not all European countries are ready to increase their military spending.
NATO today is pursuing an aggressive policy. First of all, in the information sphere. The United States is trying to convince its European allies that Russia poses a threat to them, which, of course, is not true. Such information campaigns are conducted primarily to encourage Europeans to increase their defense spending.
We must also understand that NATO, as a bureaucratic structure, is fighting for its existence. By by and large, the alliance is a collection of European bureaucrats sitting in Brussels. This is about 3.5 thousand officials who live well at the expense of the “company”.
“SP”: - That is, the Europeans will not be able to refuse NATO’s “friendly assistance”?
In the near future - no. I think that only a serious crisis into which the alliance can be drawn will force some countries to leave NATO. But, as we know from history, this organization prefers to deal with weak opponents, avoiding protracted bloody wars. Who did NATO fight with? With Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya... The risk of losing a significant number of our soldiers in such operations was minimal. At the same time, small European countries have the opportunity to spend 1-1.5% of their budget on the army. While outside the bloc they would have to spend more than 2% of the state budget.
And the United States, being, in fact, the master of NATO, spends 4-5% of its GDP on military needs, while paying about 70% of all expenses of the North Atlantic Alliance.
It is too early to talk about the collapse of NATO, says State Duma deputy from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Vyacheslav Tetyokin. - Even during the time of De Gaulle, France did not completely leave NATO. I think that Marine Le Pen, if she manages to become president, is unlikely to completely break off cooperation with the alliance. The French have traditionally sought greater independence from US policy than others Western European countries. They always loved to emphasize their uniqueness. Therefore, there is nothing unusual in Le Pen’s statement.
The leading Western powers are in no hurry to leave NATO. Another thing is that they are engaged in a kind of quiet sabotage. As a member of the State Duma delegation to the NATO parliamentary assembly, I have repeatedly been convinced that the member countries of the alliance are trying in every possible way to reduce their defense spending. They refer to the difficult economic situation, while if something happens they hope for military assistance USA. Very comfortable position.
As for the NATO “small things”, the Baltic countries, for example, their meager state budgets generally have little effect on anything. At the same time, they are the most ardent supporters of the United States. Especially in matters of anti-Russian propaganda. The Balts will stick to NATO until the last possible opportunity.
“SP”: - Now the United States is trying to persuade France, as well as other EU members, to impose maximum sanctions against Russia. In particular, the supply of French Mistral-class helicopter carriers to Russia is in question. Perhaps the fear of losing a lucrative contract will become an additional incentive to leave NATO?
Don't think. As for the Mistrals, the matter is different. France found itself in a stupid position. She was among the first to start shouting that Russia should be punished “for Crimea” with sanctions. Hollande ran ahead of the locomotive, threatening to break the contract for helicopter carriers. But in this way the French risk punishing themselves. Russia doesn’t particularly need these “iron troughs,” as the sailors call them. They do not fit into our defense doctrine, because we do not intend to carry out major landing operations. And if France refuses to sell them to us, then no one else will buy these almost ready-made ships. The United States, the only potential buyer, has enough of its own helicopter carriers.
France's relations with the North Atlantic Alliance are special place in French history. This is due, first of all, to the fact that, as a founding country of the Alliance, France did not always support NATO’s actions. Her position was largely influenced by the rapidly changing situation on the world political scene.
European countries, including France, sought to protect themselves from the “communist threat” from the Soviet Union by creating a mechanism for military and political cooperation. In addition, France was also concerned about the German threat associated with the possibility of a revival West Germany, what the English and American side. One should also take into account the difficult economic situation of France after the Second World War. The creation of this kind of Alliance allowed it to “jump on the bandwagon” as one of the leading global players.
Each country Western Europe, which became a member of NATO, was ready to contribute to the development of the Organization, but they had different attitudes towards the role of NATO. This fact clearly demonstrate the positions of France and Great Britain. The UK initially advocated that the US presence in Europe was a key factor in development integration processes, which cannot expand without strengthening ties with the United States. In turn, France was based on the fact that such a strengthening of the United States would put European countries in a subordinate position, and would also contribute to the demarcation of the positions of European countries. It was France that did not share the optimism that the United States’ intentions lie exclusively in the area of ensuring European security and was not optimistic in recognizing the exclusive role of NATO in this area.
This became obvious already in 1966, when France withdrew from the Military Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group. The United States insisted on the deployment of NATO military bases on French territory, as well as on the transfer of part of the country's military contingent under the patronage of NATO, which, of course, ran counter to the policy of “independence” of France. In addition: “while France withdrew from NATO (1966), it actively opposed US aggression in Indochina in the 1960s, condemned US aggression in Vietnam, and provided military-technical assistance to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos . Moreover: France and the USSR were negotiating a military-political alliance."
Early 1990s became a new milestone in history international relations. Dissolution of the Department of Internal Affairs, collapse of the Soviet Union, end of " cold war“- all this influenced the balance of power on the world stage. Against the backdrop of these events, NATO member countries faced the question of preserving or dissolving the Organization. The Alliance has actually lost the meaning of its existence, and a crisis of its identity has emerged.
There were several options further development events. “...Dissolve NATO following the Department of Internal Affairs; put NATO under the control of the OSCE and give it the military mechanisms that NATO had; preserve NATO in its current capacity as a military-political bloc with limited membership, however, expanding the functions and geographical area outside the euro Atlantic region". The dissolution of NATO was disadvantageous for neither the United States nor European countries due to the fact that the collapse of the Soviet Union led to instability international situation and the preservation of the bloc was supposed to be a guarantee of security in the Euro-Atlantic region. The second option was more preferable, but also did not find support from the United States, which initially intended to take the third path.
NATO expansion should be considered as three-level, because expansion means not only a quantitative increase in the members of the Alliance, but also an expansion of NATO's functions and area of responsibility. According to the Treaty Establishing the North Atlantic Alliance, NATO is an open organization into which other members other than the founding countries can join. This is enshrined in Article 10 of the Treaty: “The Contracting Parties may, by common consent, invite any other European state capable of developing the principles of this Treaty and contributing to the security of the North Atlantic region to accede to this Treaty...” That is why the question of quantitative expansion from a legal point of view has legal grounds.
As for the change functional role NATO, then the 1991 Strategic Concept of the Alliance should be noted. According to this concept, “...NATO security must be built taking into account the global context...and broader threats, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, disruptions in the supply of vital important resources and acts of terrorism and sabotage..." From this we can conclude that NATO is not only ready to adapt to new security threats, but also sees itself as the main actor in solving these problems. But the main thing that was reflected in the concept was the expansion of the range of issues that had not previously been resolved within the framework of NATO structures.
The issue of expanding NATO's zone of influence developed according to a similar scenario. The context of this expansion provision includes the conduct of military operations outside the Alliance's area of responsibility. This was first included in NATO's Strategic Concept in 1999. The expansion occurred because the concept, in addition to political aspects the “right” to conduct military operations around the world at the discretion of the Alliance was considered. This is enshrined in Paragraph 3 of the Concept, which defines: “the creation of a Euro-Atlantic security structure in which NATO plays a central role.”
NATO expansion should be viewed in the context of integration processes in Europe. The reason for this lies, first of all, in the fact that the European Union needed NATO's help in providing a security line that would guarantee protection from the unstable situation prevailing in the CEE countries after the liquidation of the ATS.
By the time NATO’s expansion to the East actually took place at the expense of the CEE countries, J. Chirac was in power in France, having won the presidential elections in 1995. Some changes took place in the country’s foreign policy. In the highest echelons of power, talk began that the new President would return France to NATO military structures and agree to transfer a certain amount of the French military contingent under the patronage of the Alliance forces. But all these statements were made during the election race, and when it ended and victory was already in hand, J. Chirac actually abandoned the Atlantic course. J. Chirac was confident that if the United States were allowed to spread its hegemony to the East, pan-European security would soon only decline, and European security projects would remain on paper. Thus, the position of France after J. Chirac took office became ambivalent. The President tried, on the one hand, to show that he thinks primarily about the advantages of France, and, on the other hand, he smoothed out relations with the Alliance, while refusing to return to military structures.
The second reason for the actual refusal at the beginning of his presidential term from the Atlantic course, and, consequently, for a not very favorable attitude towards NATO expansion to the East, was the rapprochement of France with Russia. There is a coincidence here with Germany’s position on this issue. In particular, speaking to the Bundestag on September 11, 1996, G. Kohl highlighted his country’s main position on NATO expansion: to temporarily postpone the adoption concrete solutions on the entry of new members into the North Atlantic Alliance before 1997, “so that Russia does not get the impression that fait accomplis are being created here” 4 . France also took a position that showed that it was ready to take into account Russian interests in in this context: “Considering such an expansion to be inevitable, the French president, nevertheless, believed that it should take place taking into account Russia’s security interests and simultaneously with the reform of the North Atlantic Alliance, which is absolutely necessary in the new world system after the collapse of the USSR.”
Another statement by J. Chirac suggests that France did not adhere to the position of immediate expansion of the Alliance: “To the East, the Alliance must build true partnerships with such big country like Russia. The establishment of strong ties between them and rapprochement will contribute to respect for the sovereignty and interests of each side.” Such a position could not help strengthen France’s position in NATO. Firstly, this contradicted the US idea of immediate expansion of NATO, and, secondly, it exposed France to the risk of finding itself on the sidelines of world politics.
That is why, in order to smooth out the accumulated contradictions that had accumulated in connection with the consideration of this issue, France decided to become a mediator in relations between Russia and NATO, thereby justifying its agreement with the US position on the expansion of the Alliance to the East: “France is at the origins of rapprochement Russia and NATO... now Russia will be able to fully participate in establishing the contours of a new Euro-Atlantic security space.” In 1997, at the Madrid Conference, the Founding Act of mutual relations, cooperation and security between Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which was also initiated by France. According to this act: “Russia and NATO do not consider each other as opponents. Common goal Russia and NATO are to overcome the remnants of previous confrontation and rivalry and strengthen mutual trust and cooperation. This Act confirms their determination to give concrete content to the common commitment of Russia and NATO to create a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe, united and free, for the benefit of all its peoples. The acceptance of this commitment at the highest political level is the beginning of a fundamentally new relationship between Russia and NATO. They intend to develop a strong, stable and long-term partnership based on common interests, reciprocity and transparency.” Consequently, by becoming a mediator in the negotiations, France smoothed relations with Russia, on the one hand, and justified consent to NATO expansion, on the other.
J. Chirac, despite the fact that he was forced to agree with the expansion, believed that it would lead to an even greater reduction in the role of European countries in ensuring security. An example is NATO's attempts to intervene in the Yugoslav conflict in 1998 and France's position on this issue. France at that time expanded its powers within the NATO military structures, returning to the Military Committee in 1995. When discussing the question of how events would develop in Yugoslavia, France denied the possibility of a forceful solution to the problem, due to the fact that the Alliance should not, in its opinion, spread its military influence outside the Atlantic region, especially since the UN forces have more to do with it legal rights and without its sanction, interference in the internal affairs of a state is unlawful. The United States accused France of refusing to help the Alliance, as a NATO member, in finding new reasons for its existence.
1999 gave France a new reason to re-introduce the issue that security is possible without NATO expansion through the expansion European structures. Within the framework of the European Union, a common European security and defense policy was created, which theoretically could lead to the isolation of the military-political component of the EU and its transformation into an independent structure. Hopes for change were dashed because in 1999 Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO. There was an expansion of NATO's area of responsibility into the territory of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as an increase in the number of countries in the Alliance.
Events of the beginning of the 21st century. showed that the Alliance will continue to expand in functionally. The United States, using the events of September 11, 2001, committed a number of actions that were justified by them. Thus, the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, starting to create national system missile defense, and also used this to carry out a number of activities outside the NATO area of responsibility. This is evidenced by the operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2002 and the war in Iraq in 2003. France, in turn, is beginning a policy to increase loyalty regarding the issue of NATO expansion to the East. This was reflected in the fact that during the NATO summit in Prague in 2002, France supported the initiative of the Alliance member countries to expand the number of headquarters to increase management efficiency, but most importantly, France actually supported territorial expansion Alliance to the East.
In 2004, another round of NATO expansion to the East took place. Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia became members of the Alliance. That is why France should begin to adapt to the rapidly changing situation on the world stage, so as not to remain on the periphery of world politics. France decides not only to start helping NATO, but also to expand its presence in the military political structures: “During this period, France delegated its representatives to KFOR for Kosovo, an international military force led by NATO; participated in joint actions in Afghanistan, sending there its contingent of troops and several Mirage 2000-D fighter-bombers. Its military has replenished its strength rapid response Alliance" . In fact, from this moment we can say that there is a tendency towards a full-scale return of France to the military structures of the Alliance.In Paris in 2006, at the annual conference of French ambassadors abroad, the French President made a statement: “Attempts to involve the North Atlantic Alliance in non-military missions, temporary partnerships, technological adventures, insufficiently prepared expansion can only change the very purpose of NATO.”
Thus, by 2007, France entered almost all NATO military structures, except for the Defense Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group. In 2007, another change of power occurred in France. N. Sarkozy came to power and adjusted foreign policy countries. This was reflected in the fact that France now actually agreed to pursue an Atlantic course and promote the expansion of the Alliance.
By the time of the next expansion of the Alliance in 2009, France’s position regarding the expansion of the Alliance had become even softer: « NATO expansion represents central element security and stability on the continent,” said the new President of the Republic N. Sarkozy. Also on July 20, 2009, F. Stohl was appointed to the post of head of the NATO Allied Forces in Lisbon, and on July 29, S. Abrial was appointed to the post Supreme Commander joint NATO forces. “Abrial became the first representative of European countries to receive one of two strategically important positions in the leadership of the North Atlantic Alliance, which strengthens France’s position not only in NATO, but also in Europe as a whole. This completed the integration of France into NATO military structures. This is expressed in the gradual increase in the French military contingent in NATO, in particular the French air force now make up about 20% of the total composition."
Thus, it should be noted that under Charles de Gaulle the state policy towards NATO was negative. Its apogee was France’s withdrawal from the military structures of the Alliance, which, on the one hand, complicated the advancement of France’s position in the political structures of NATO, and on the other, made it possible to pursue a policy independent of the United States. In the foreign policy concept of France under J. Chirac, there has been a tendency towards a more loyal attitude towards NATO, and there has also been a desire to support its fundamental initiatives, including three-level expansion. N. Sarkozy significantly adjusted the country's position in relation to the role of NATO, returning France to the military structures of the Alliance.
The issue of NATO expansion was one of the priority areas in relations between France and the North Atlantic Alliance. Initially, the French side advocated the gradual expansion of NATO. But the contradictions that arose with the United States on this issue did not allow France to fully adhere to the chosen course. The evolution of the position occurred gradually, and this is what gave the chance to continue cooperation with the United States in this area, as well as maintain favorable relations with Russia. Overall, it can be concluded that the French position had a clear justification in the context of rapidly changing political events.
References:
- Vidyapina V.I. Economic development France in 1914-1990 M. 1998 -335 p.
- Kaninskaya G.N. Paris and NATO // International life. 2008. No. 10. -132 p.
- Kotlyar V.S. International law and modern strategic concepts of the USA and NATO. – Kazan, 2008. – 480 p.
- Independent newspaper. Chirac is against the rush to expand NATO. http://www.ng.ru/world/2006-08-30/1_shirak.html
- Pupykin N.I. "PRIVILEGED" RELATIONS WITH MOSCOW IN J. CHIRAK'S FOREIGN POLICY (1995-2002). – 87 p.
- Utkin A.S. “Two Shores of the Atlantic” No. 2, 1999
- Schmitt M. The fight against terrorism and the use of force from the point of view international law// No. 5 Center named after. J. Marshall, 22002. – P.85.
- Legal Russia. Federal legal portal. Article 10 of the Treaty establishing the North Atlantic Alliance. www.law.edu.ru/norm/norm.asp?normlD=1168226
- Chirac J. Allocution a l"occasion du diner d"Etat offert en l"honneur de son excellence Monsieur Le President de la Federation de Russie et Madame Ludmila Poutina. 02/10/2003// http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/inter ve ntions/discours_et_declarations/2003/fevrier/fevrier_2003.13257.html
- Dominique David La politique étrangére France/OTAN: la derniè marche. 2008. P. 49.
- La France a l'OTAN. La France dans la transformation de l'OTANhttp://www.rpfrance-otan.org/La-France-dans-la-transformation
- US Department of State Press Release “The Alliance Strategic Concept”, NAC-S(99) 65, 24 April 1999. – P. 4.
- Vedrine H. Continue l'histoire. Paris., 2007. P.51.
- Organ theization of the Atlantic Alliance. 05/27/1997. Fundamental Act on mutual relations, cooperation and security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.http://www.nato.int/cps/ru/natolive/official_texts_25468.htm
- Russian newspaper. Resign - more than once. 40 years ago de Gaulle left power. Why was he so disliked in the USA and at the end of the USSR?http://www.rg.ru/2009/04/24/degoll.html
- Echo Geo. L'élargissement de l'OTAN. Les enjeux et les risques du sommet de Bucarest (2-4 avril 2008)http://echogeo.revues.org/5083#tocto2n2
Natalya Ivkina, student Russian University Friendship of Peoples (RUDN University)
Coursework
"France and NATO (1958-1966)"
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I. Relations between France and NATO in the 1950s - 1965s
§ 1. French security project in the 50s of the XX century
§ 2. Fifth Republic: course towards the reorganization of NATO (1958-1962)
§ 3. Exacerbation of contradictions with the Alliance (1963-1965)
CHAPTER II. French politics 1965-1966 (from elections to exit)
§ 1. France's withdrawal from the integrated military organization NATO
§ 2. Allied reaction
CONCLUSION
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
Our work is related to the study of the relationship between NATO and France in 1958-1966 - the time when serious problems in relations between France and the United States and when French leader Charles de Gaulle broke off his country's military cooperation with the North Atlantic Alliance. The significance of this is difficult to overestimate - France was one of the countries
France is one of the 12 founding countries of NATO, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a nuclear power, and in the 40s and 50s it was considered (along with Great Britain) one of the main US allies in Europe. France's withdrawal from NATO military programs at the height of the Cold War (recall that in 1962 the so-called “ Cuban missile crisis"), indicated that NATO does not have the unity that the United States wanted to demonstrate Soviet Union. The “demarche” of France prepared the “ground” for the future policy of “détente” in relations between NATO countries and participating countries Warsaw Pact. In addition, France's special position within NATO is one of the first signs of the desire of European countries for greater independence from the economic and political expansion of the United States, which in many ways paved the way for the modern European Union. This determines relevance our work.
Target course work– study the relationship between France and the North Atlantic Alliance in 1958-1966.
Tasks based on this goal are:
Study the French security project in the 50s of the XX century;
Determine the special position of the “Fifth Republic” regarding the possibilities of NATO reorganization in 1958-1962;
Identify the reasons for the aggravation of contradictions between France and the Alliance in 1963-1965;
Describe the events that directly led to France's withdrawal from the NATO military organization;
Analyze the reaction of France's NATO allies to this.
The specified goals and objectives form structure our work, which consists of an introduction, two chapters (the first has three paragraphs, the second has two), a conclusion and a list of references.
CHAPTER I. Relations between France and NATO in the 1950s - 1965s
§ 1. French security project in the 50s of the XX century
The relationship between France and NATO in the 50s and 60s of the 20th century was determined by the combination of a number of trends and events characteristic of the internal political life of the French Republic and international relations of that time.
It is necessary to familiarize yourself with all these trends and events, but first we will give a brief historical excursion into the relations between France and NATO in the 40s and 50s of the 20th century.
So, France is one of the 12 founding countries of NATO (along with the USA, Great Britain, Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Iceland, Canada and Norway). The North Atlantic Alliance was created in 1949, and the main purpose of its creation should be seen in the context of the emerging Cold War. Western countries from the USSR. Official languages NATO at that time became English and French, and the location of the headquarters was determined as the city of Paris, the capital of France.
The spirit and structure of NATO implied the creation of certain military structures, participation in which was mandatory for national armies alliance member countries. In the second half of the 40s - the first half of the 50s, relations between France and NATO were more than friendly, and the actions of France, as a NATO member, were coordinated with other members of the Alliance, primarily with the United States. Part of the French armed forces found itself under the unified command of NATO.
It should be noted here that the role of the United States in post-war Europe increased sharply. The American economy, with the help of the mechanisms of the Marshall Plan, was firmly entrenched in Europe, and political leadership America, pursued its policy without too much regard for the positions of those weakened by the Second World War European countries. France, weakened by the consequences of the German occupation, was no exception in this context.
This prevailing position of the United States in NATO in general, and in the life of France in particular, was characteristic until the second half of the 50s of the 20th century, when the leader of the French resistance during the Second World War, Charles de Gaulle, came to power in France (1959).
The French leadership of that time, under the leadership of the aforementioned Charles de Gaulle, was developing a set of measures designed to contribute to the return of France to the status of a world power in foreign policy on the one hand, and on the other, aimed at solving the internal political problems of the state. However, before characterizing and describing these measures, it seems necessary to us to briefly describe the domestic and foreign policies of France in the 50s of the 20th century, or rather those actions of the French leadership, which were called the “French security project.”
So, France in the early 50s of the XX century - on the one hand great power, permanent member of the UN Security Council, one of the four countries officially recognized as the victors of fascism, colonial empire with vast dependent territories, on the other hand, a country with an unstable economy, with industry destroyed during the Second World War, with problems in the colonies (Algeria, Morocco).
In parentheses, we note that in solving the problems of France with the colonies, the United States, and therefore the rest of NATO countries, took a rather wait-and-see attitude, not interested in either the excessive weakening of France or its rise.
Dependence on the American economy, which developed in the first post-war years leads to a protracted economic crisis, the Algerian war of independence leads to major internal political problems, and the inability political forces leads to compromise French society into a state close to civil war.
These, and many other smaller reasons, in 1958, lead French society into a state of collapse. The leaders of France are losing the trust of their voters, and the ideas of a “strong hand” at the head of state, the hopes for which he embodied, are becoming increasingly popular national hero French General Charles de Gaulle (1890-1970)
On May 12, 1958, Charles de Gaulle, through news agencies, disseminates a message, the most famous words of which: “For 12 years now, France has been trying to resolve problems beyond the capabilities of the party regime, and is heading towards disaster. Once, in a difficult hour, the country trusted me so that I would lead it to salvation. Today, when the country faces new challenges, let it know that I am ready to assume all the powers of the Republic.”
In events that were more like a coup d'etat, Charles de Gaulle became prime minister on June 1, 1958 and initiated a constitutional reform that led to the adoption of a new French Constitution on September 28, 1958, which marked the beginning of a new period in the history of France - so called the “Fifth Republic,” of which General de Gaulle became president on January 8, 1959.
In addition to solving problems domestic policy, the government of Charles de Gaulle set the task of a radical reorganization of the foreign policy of the French Republic, which also implied a change in the role and place of France in NATO.
Thus, several preliminary conclusions can be drawn:
France was at the origins of the creation of NATO in 1949, and the headquarters of the Alliance was initially located in Paris;
NATO membership did not save France from severe consequences the Second World War and contributed little to solving domestic and foreign policy problems that took place in the 50s of the 20th century;
The dependence on the American economy that developed in the first post-war years leads to a protracted economic crisis, the Algerian war of independence leads to major internal political problems, and the inability of political forces to compromise leads French society to a state close to civil war;
Against the backdrop of these events, Charles de Gaulle (1958–1959), a hero of the French resistance during the Second World War, a politician who advocates the reorganization of the domestic and foreign policies of France, comes to power in France.
Thus, a complex of contradictions in the French state and society in the 50s of the 20th century led to the formation of the so-called. the “fifth republic”, whose leaders set as one of their main goals the course of reorganizing NATO. We will get acquainted with the consequences of these actions in the following presentation.
§ 2. Fifth Republic: course towards the reorganization of NATO (1958-1962)
So, in France in 1958, a tough and authoritarian politician, Charles de Gaulle, comes to power, who, while solving the country’s internal political problems, pays sufficient attention to foreign policy. Let's get acquainted with its main directions in 1958-1962 - the time when France's main claims to NATO, in general, and the United States in particular, were formulated.
France's first task in those years was to solve the problem of Algeria, which had been waging a war of independence for several years (since 1954). The consequences of this war negatively affected the French state, so de Gaulle puts the task of decolonization at the forefront French possessions. In 1962, the war ends with the granting of independence to Algeria.
