A few days before the second round of the presidential election, Marc-Olivier Padis, director of studies at the Terra Nova think tank (close to the center left) and former editor of the review Mind, analyzes the consequences that the international policy envisaged by Marine Le Pen would have for our country. Maintenance.
the express : What impact do you think a victory for Marine Le Pen would have on France’s international relations?
Marc-Olivier Padis: This would certainly lead to a major weakening of France’s voice on the international scene. Firstly because the RN candidate wants to upset our logic of alliances – exit from NATO’s integrated command and development of a new alliance with Russia. His election would lead not only to isolation, but also to a loss of credibility for our country. Its international commitments would indeed become questionable – in particular because of the questioning of European and international treaties to which France has subscribed.
The RN candidate no longer wants to leave the European Union, as in 2017, but to replace it with a “Europe of nations”: is this more reassuring?
It puts a lot of emphasis on the idea of cooperation. According to her, why not be satisfied with this cooperation between European States, rather than bothering with a complex European system, with a Commission, a court of Justice… But what she envisages are one-off partnerships that would entail permanent negotiation. There would be no stability in decisions since everyone could question their commitments overnight, because that no longer suits them… We would enter into a transactional system, as the former president had theorized American Donald Trump for international relations. However, this is precisely what the European Union wants to avoid. She wants States to make long-term commitments and not based on political vagaries. This is the condition for real cooperation to work. What Marine Le Pen is attacking is not simply European construction, it is the permanence of France’s commitments. It constantly speaks of sovereignty, but sovereignty is also the legal continuity of the word of the State.
Would its desire to make French law take precedence over European law lead to a “Frexit” which does not say its name?
Marine Le Pen has found a back door to question France’s membership of Europe. This door is her referendum, the first important act she wants to do on immigration, establishing the primacy of French law over European law. The hard point of his program remains nevertheless the national preference and therefore the established discrimination. However, our Constitution opposes this – because of the Declaration of Human Rights – as does European law. The heart of its program not being feasible in the current state of the law, it must transgress all these legal rules, in particular European ones. And so, what she wants to do, with her referendum supposed to endorse the national priority, is, finally, to say no to Europe. Stop recognizing the European Convention on Human Rights, the fundamental rights defended by Europe.
It would not be the French equivalent of Brexit, but she would put herself in a Polish position: a self-service attitude. I take what suits me within the European Union, but not fundamental rights, nor European arbitration. Given the weight of France in Europe, other countries would be tempted to follow the same path. All of this would inevitably lead to a weakening of the EU, or even its disappearance. If each State retains only what pleases it, there is no longer any policy or common principles, any more functioning institutions.
Marine Le Pen does not hide her support for Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban, is the latter’s “illiberal” model a source of inspiration for her?
Viktor Orban was the first to theorize his practice with this idea of ”illiberal” democracy. What is under attack in Hungary is the rule of law, the independence of justice; in short, the fact that the political decision is framed by a system of legal control. This is what interests Marine Le Pen. In liberal democracy, there are checks and balances. The executive cannot do everything. Her dream, if she wins the elections, is to have her hands free to do whatever she wants. She defends it in the name of this idea of popular sovereignty, even if it is contrary to the fundamental principles of the country. No, democracy cannot work like that.
If the RN candidate comes to power, can she hope to find European allies governed by the radical right?
That’s what she claims to want to do. But in reality, these parties agree on very little. Moreover, they have not succeeded in forming a group in the European Parliament and their rare expressions of common objectives are very poor and limited. As for the Visegrad group, formed in particular by Hungary and Poland, it exploded because of the war in Ukraine. Poland, very anti-Russian, is not at all on the same line as Hungary, which has remained close to Vladimir Putin. In fact, this sort of informal rapprochement did not hold over time, because it was all opportunistic, depending on domestic political considerations. As everyone thinks only of their interests, the very small club with which she thinks she can find a new alliance for France is actually very fragile. It mainly comes down to Hungary.
Marine Le Pen continues to advocate an “alliance” with Russia. What would be the danger for France, while Moscow is increasing war crimes in Ukraine?
Even though she condemned Russian aggression against Ukraine, the RN candidate kept her project of “alliance” with Russia in her program, which seems amazing. Inevitably, one raises the question of a possible dependence, in particular financial vis-à-vis Moscow, since it still has an outstanding loan from a Russian bank. For a party which uses the adjective patriotic all the time, which speaks of the independence of France, of its strategic autonomy, all of this is completely contradictory.
Moreover, we do not really see what we would have to gain from an alliance with Russia, nor what it would encompass in concrete terms. On what ground? In Africa, where is Russia waging a war of influence against us? Certainly not. In the Middle East, where she distinguished herself by her atrocities and her support for Bashar al-Assad in Syria? More than problematic.
Leaving the integrated command of NATO is another promise of Marine Le Pen: what would be the consequences for France?
It is presented as a measure that may seem less anxiety-provoking for the French: after all, our country has long been outside NATO’s integrated command, and it was General de Gaulle’s decision to take it out. It can therefore be linked to a certain heritage. But the context has changed and today this would pose real problems. Integrated command is the possibility of carrying out joint, well-coordinated actions within NATO. The problem is that there are few European armies capable of intervening outside national territory. France is part of it with Great Britain, that’s about all. The risk is that France finds itself, unwittingly, isolated in actions abroad. However, the whole strategy of France, since the intervention in Mali, is to train its European partners with it, as it tried to do in the Sahel.
This measure is misleading. Leaving NATO’s integrated command sends the political message that France will regain its autonomy of speech. Whereas it is precisely because we accompany the United States that we can talk to them. From the moment we would isolate ourselves, we would no longer have the ability to assert our point of view. The voice of France would count for much less.
At the same time, the candidate attacks the Franco-German couple…
As with the rapprochement with Russia, the same anti-system logic prevails. Applied somewhat mechanically and rigidly to all subjects. She prefers to get along with the British, where she finds the anti-European side. But the Franco-German couple is what often allows the French point of view to prevail at European level, when we manage to agree.
And therefore, to attack it is to deprive oneself of one of the main levers of influence of France in Europe and in the world. Not to mention that if we want to make the electric battery of the future or the European cloud, it will of course be with Germany, Europe’s leading industrial power.