But if American sentiment follows that expressed by Richard Perle, namely that France is no longer an ally, that France is dangerous because it seeks to balance against the United States, and that therefore one must seek to reduce its influence within the European Union, then relations will degrade. Certainly France will have to pay for its policies during the diplomatic phase of the conflict with Iraq, but it's a question of degree. And this is important to remember. So greater rhetorical and conceptual prudence is required not just in Paris, but also in Washington.  

To conclude, I hope that both governments understand that divergences in opinion between allies are legitimate, and that this crisis can be considered alongside other recent Franco-American crises. For example, President Reagan had close ties with President Mitterand notwithstanding the fact that the French president engineered rather anti-American policies on more than a few occasions. Reagan understood that Mitterand would support him "when", as you said in your recent article, "the chips were down, successive U.S. administrations believed that France could be counted among its closest allies." 

Franco-American cooperation is mutually beneficial, especially in the context of the war on terrorism. To forget this is a grave danger. Lastly, Washington must understand that the French project for Europe, that, that Europe should become a power in the international system, is not a danger to America.  

 

Philippe Raynaud is a professor of political science at Université de Paris II (Panthénon-Assas) and a noted commentator on the Franco-American relationship.