France’s “Return” to NATO: An Inopportune Decision
The French decision to re-enter NATO’s integrated military structure is merely the confirmation of a series of shifts that started a long time ago. But it is no less questionable a decision. It is a symbolic decision that affects France’s image internationally. It by no means guarantees that the Alliance will evolve in a way that corresponds to France’s national interests; nor does it shed light on France’s ambiguous future. It does, however, in a very real way, risk diminishing France’s will to defend itself.
The decision of French President Sarkozy that France re-enter NATO’s integrated military structure is, as his supporters have pointed out, the confirmation of a series of earlier shifts. The validity of these changes was debatable at the time, but they are now a fixture of the French political landscape.
Indeed, France played a part in NATO’s survival after the Cold War by agreeing to an intervention in 1994-1995 in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and, later, in 1999 – this time without a UN mandate – in Kosovo and more generally in Yugoslavia. As early as December 1995, France re-entered NATO’s Military Committee. France had agreed to intervene outside its original sphere of influence.
At the beginning, the Atlantic Alliance, of which France never ceased to be a part, was a defensive alliance, restricted to the Euro-Atlantic zone. Over the years, and particularly since 1999 (Kosovo) and 2001 (Afghanistan), it has become a global alliance committed to stabilization and peace-enforcement operations. This is effectively a shift in the organization’s stated purpose. NATO is now portrayed as ‘the UN’s military arm,’ yet this has not always been the case. During the Kosovo conflict, NATO bombed Yugoslavian cities, supplanting the UN whose Security Council had not issued a mandate for intervention. We can only hope that this regrettable situation will not be repeated. It is worth noting, however, that the manner in which the Kosovo conflict was dealt with set a precedent that led to the invasion of Iraq by a ‘coalition of volunteers’ led by the United States and, for the most part, recent or older members of NATO. In opposing the invasion of Iraq, France was a minority within the United States-dominated organization, as well as within the European Union.
Furthermore, France has now become one of the main contributors to NATO’s ‘stabilization operations.’ As such, was it necessary to take things further by re-entering NATO’s Defense Planning Committee (DPC) as well as its Chief of Staff ranks? In other words, France is once again a part of NATO’s integrated military structure, which remains, from an operational point of view, under the supreme command of an American general. Justifying this decision is no small task because it is a political and symbolic decision whose importance should by no means be played down.
What are France and NATO’s common interests?
The expected benefits do not, in my view, outweigh the disadvantages that this decision involves. The French President’s justification (“We are a part of the Western family”) can only be the result of a hasty assessment. The decline of the American superpower is indeed on the cards. The United States is living beyond its means. […]
Outline
- What are France and NATO’s common interests?
- Current challenges facing the Alliance
- Is this decision putting France in danger?
Jean-Pierre Chevènement holds the title of Honorary Member of Parliament and was previously a Minister.
This paper is translated in English by Clémence Sébag.
Download the full analysis
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
France’s “Return” to NATO: An Inopportune Decision
Author(s)
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
A New Path for Europe
The construction of the European Union is historically inseparable from the emergence, at the end of World War II, of an Atlantic world dominated by the United States. Successive enlargements and the revision of U.S. policy are undermining the concepts upon which the European Union has been built since the fall of the USSR. It is undoubtedly time to return to a path of more diverse groupings, corresponding to the levels of commitment and the interests of the states of the Old Continent.
How Technology Is Reshaping the World Order
The central role of technology in the competition between the major powers is fueling an ever-more intense rivalry. Artificial intelligence is enabling large corporations to accrue unprecedented power, with consequences for states and even for international conflict. However, states do have tools at their disposal to regulate these developments. In this international competition, Europe has a strong hand, but must be prepared to play its cards in order to create a new kind of international cooperation.
Reflections on A Darkening World
The system that emerged after the Second World War to regulate international relations is now moribund. Russia and China may have weakened it, but it seems that Donald Trump’s United States may deliver the fatal blow. The prevailing atmosphere is one of power struggles, and the rise of nationalisms is fraught with danger. The artificial intelligence revolution also needs to be factored into this equation, as it has a strong bearing on how much power different players can exert. In this respect, Europe must ensure it does not get left behind.
1936-2026: 90th Anniversary of the Journal "Politique étrangère"
Founded in 1936 and published by the French Institute of International Relations (Ifri), Politique étrangère, France’s longest-running journal of international relations, is set to publish a special issue in early June 2026. Bringing together distinguished French and international contributors, this issue aims to provide an overview of an uncertain world and its possible futures. In an unprecedented undertaking, Politique étrangère brings together a wide range of international contributions in an effort to grasp a global landscape that is at once open and fragmented, in all its diversity and dynamism. Through in-depth analyses of cross-cutting challenges, reflections on methods and structures of governance, and projections into futures feared or envisioned by creators from around the world—ranging from alternative histories to speculative thought experiments—the various approaches complement and challenge one another, opening up broad avenues for reflection.