Geopolitics -- France

In keeping with my field of study for next year (“Geopolitics and Grand Strategy”) I have decided to compose a couple of articles about the geopolitical importance of multiple countries.

France will be the target of today’s post.

Looking at a map of Europe, France holds a very powerful position. It borders seven countries and two bodies of water. Andorra, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Monaco and Italy all border France. The English Channel separates France from the only other European nuclear power, the United Kingdom. The Mediterranean Sea separates France from the north coast of Africa and the Western-most coast of the Middle East.

France has neared superpower status on multiple occasions, most notably the reign of Napoleon being the closest. Instead of growing into its potential, France has been subject to English domination in the 18^th century and then subjected to Nazi rule in Germany. Now France holds an interesting position where they may hold the key to the ambitions of the US in Eurasia.

Generally speaking, in a vote that splits the UNSC East v. West the votes will be grouped with China and Russia on one side and France, UK, and the US on the other side. If you need proof of this, look at past votes over whether to impose sanctions on North Korea and Iran. It is hard to imagine the US without the UK by its side. The US/UK alliance is an impotent duo at best. The UK lost its geopolitical importance during the Second World War; since 1945 the UK has failed to be a geopolitical player. It may be a subject of their distance from West/East divide (which I would put probably in Eastern Europe descending on the Eastern border of the Ukraine and Turkey, both of which will be the subject of this series in the upcoming week) or their impotency on the world stage. The other duo is the “Eastern Alliance” (as I will call it) of Russia and China which will reliably protect their interests both in the Middle East and East Asia. This is where France’s situation becomes interesting.

For most who pay attention to international politics, France is often an unreliable, erratic actor. Sometimes they are staunch allies of the United States and other times they are the first to criticize the US. In a contested vote on the Security Council, France often holds the deciding vote. This makes the relationship between the US and France a delicate one. With the rise in potency of the European Union in the past decade France also has the ability to united Europe to reassert itself as the world’s superpower (I say ‘reassert’ referring to the time when Europe was the head of exploration and colonialism). France has the unique ability to do this because of their geographic location, their nuclear weapons stockpile (third largest in the world), and their ability to lead. When consulting my peers about the question of leadership in Europe many asserted it was Germany, not France, had the ability to lead. I think Germany has two problems. The first being the most obvious, they are not a part of the nuclear club. The second harkens back to World War II and Nazi rule. There is still a collective memory of the Holocaust which weighs heavy on any assertion of German leadership. Therefore Germany holds the excellent ability to fight for a united Europe without German leadership.

If Europe united with France leading the way into 2010 and beyond, the US may have to rethink its strategy in Europe. The hundreds of thousands of US troops stationed in Europe would be forced to come home, and the US would lose influence on the world’s largest land mass and population center (Eurasia).

France is clearly the main player in European geopolitics; they hold the key to the entirety of Europe, both in and out of the UN. The alliance between the US and France one that is necessary of frequent nurturing. A hostile France could substantially limit the power of the United States in Eurasia.

One More Won't Hurt

I found this too interesting to not post:

Jeffrey over at ArmsControlWonk came into possession of some DPRK bank-notes and had them scanned onto his blog. You'll notice the 5 is nuclear themed, very interesting!

North Korea Threatens the US

Last night I was reading my last batch of news before going to sleep when I see a small article on BBC.com saying the state television station of North Korea has carried a message the US:

Any attempt to interfere with North Korean ships would be seen as an act of war and would require military action.

My question is; Who is North Korea kidding? The UNSC just UNANIMOUSLY approved new sanctions against the pariah state. China and Russia, typically defenders of North Korea in the UN, surprisingly voiced no opposition to the new sanctions. If North Korea launched an attack against the South, or even US property abroad, do they really think they would survive? The South and Japan would most definitely take part in this military operation. What makes them think they would not be the next Afghanistan or Iraq?

Even if they did threaten a nuclear attack, most of the world is not completely sure they would be able to effectively launch the weapon.

Maybe after the transition of power between Kim Jong-il and his son this situation will settle down.

The Nuclear Future

I think the world is just now starting to realize that nuclear weapons are an inevitable part of the world's future. North Korea has about 2-5 nuclear weapons, and Iran is vigilantly pursuing nukes much to the discontent of the Western World. It is time to realize, nuclear weapons are not going away. They are only going to spread over the next couple of decades. While I would love to be able to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists and crazed dictators throughout the world, it is simply not going to happen. North Korea is a recent failure of the international community in preventing nuclear proliferation. Many of my detractors will say the North Korean example is counteracted by the example of Libya giving up its nuclear program years ago. I contend that Libya's reversal of policy is the last of its type. It is far too easy to figure out how to make a nuclear weapon for countries with the scientific know-how and access to Plutonium or Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) (I've read enough books on nuclear weapons to be able to simply explain two ways to create a nuke without help).

I do not contend we should stop from trying to stem the spread of nuclear weapons, but instead we should also work on international safeguards beyond the toothless treaties to which all states are signatories (NPT). Instead we need to work on having all nuclear devices outfitted with Permissive Action Links (PALs). PALs simply are a mechanism which by which nukes are safeguarded from unintential activation or detonation. Along with PALs there needs to be a more concerted international effort to secure weapons grade Plutonium and HEU to ensure it does not fall into the hands of terrorists.

North Korea names a successor...or not?

BBC reported this morning that North Korea has named a new leader, the youngest son of current leader, Kim Jong-Il. This news comes in the wake of the North's second nuclear test in three years. Along with this test they have also tested five missiles in the past two weeks. At the time of the nuclear test many analysts speculated that the nuclear test was to cover up a transfer of power. Those speculators have been proven correct, or so they think.


The news of a new leader of North Korea is not without its detractors. Andrei Lankov from the Australian National University is posted on BBC as saying this is just another rumor. The rumor of a new leader has been circulating since Kim Jong-Il suffered a stroke in August 2008. Lankov cites the waves of rumors that have circulated since the stroke. "We had rumours in September, October that it will be Chang Song-taek, Kim Jong-il's brother-in-law, then briefly there were rumours about his second son, then stories about his third son,..."

North Korea -- What to do?

I refrained from posting about this yesterday when North Korea set off their second nuclear test in three years because of the lack of definitive information about the test. This nuclear test was carried out in the northern province of Kilju, the same location of the 2006 test. There is no official determination of the yield of the weapon tested, Russia has reported up to 40 Kilotons, other reports indicate as low as 4 Kilotons. The 2006 test was a low yield bomb of 1 kiloton (equivalent to 1,000 sticks of dynamite, considered relatively low for a nuclear weapon). Aidan Foster-Carter perceptively writes that North Korea is clearly not going to be the next Libya and give up their nuclear weapons program. Assuming that North Korea, under no condition, is going to give up their nuclear program, then we must find another way to negotiate with North Korea. The past six years of so-called Six Party Talks has yielded no results other than an empty promise of North Korea abandoning its nuclear program. With that promise now void, another strategy must be devised.
New negotiations with Pyongyong must take on a different tone now, one that encompasses much more than their youthful nuclear program. Most who follow North Korea in the news know about their starving population and the "secret" forced labor camps which are inhabited by those who dare speak against the government. With these conditions in mind, the US and other states must find a different way to negotiate with the DPRK.
We must realize that putting sanctions on North Korea again, will not do much, except further starve the citizens. There needs to be a way to integrate them into the global system in a meaningful way so that they will stop threatening those around them and they loosen the stranglehold on the economy and citizens.
We have to do a couple of things in my opinion:
1. Actually find a credible negotiator (preferably Kim Jong Il himself)
2. Ask exactly what they want; if it is a nuclear program, we need to draft an agreement which allows IAEA inspectors to all of the nuclear facilities, there need to be efficient safeguards (PALs, etc), there needs to be an agreement to prevent the distribution of nuclear material or dual-use technologies.
3. In return for being brought into the international community, there needs to be some sort of assurance that the citizens are allowed additional freedoms, especially easy access to food.

Other things are also needed, but this is just a start. I do not think many people really understand what Kim Jong Il really wants out of this program. We need to understand his thinking before we can effectively negotiate. If we can reach a mutual agreement it is easier to assuage the tensions on the Korean Peninsula.