C��line Pajon : ��The Europeans recognize that there are clear interconnections between the Indo-Pacific and European countries.��

2024.09.11

Interviewed and written by Mao Shishido
Published : September 11th, 2024

Head of Japan Research at the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI) shared her views about how she observes France��s Indo-Pacific Strategy vis-��-vis the US, China, Japan, and Europe.

France��s Balancing Policy

-----The Indo-Pacific region faces several challenges from the tension across the Taiwan Strait and in the South China Sea to North Korea. However, the extent to which France can take a clear position is limited because of France's balancing policy. What do you think of France's balancing policy and its limitations, and how can Paris deal with that?

I must say that the balancing policy, ��puissance d����quilibre,�� is not very clear in the first place. Even in France, there are many discussions about how to figure out the real sense of this expression. It creates much confusion and sends mixed messages to other countries. So, first of all, we need to acknowledge that. Officials and experts frequently underline that the balancing strategy is not meant to be equidistant between the US and China. France has much more in common with the US; we share values, interests, principles, and a long history, and our armed forces have fought together several times, so our alliance is very tight.

However, we do not want to be constantly aligned with the US government's choices. Just think about how the Trump administration rejected multilateralism and implemented an ��America First�� strategy. Also, the US is obsessed with the rise of China. Washington sees the strategy competition with China as its vital interest, but this is not the case for the Europeans: We acknowledge China as a systemic rival, a competitor, but also, sometimes, as a partner, especially regarding some global challenges such as climate change.

That is why we want to keep our channels of communication and dialogue open with China. This is a traditional posture of France, trying to always communicate with all countries, even if we have some disagreements with them. For example, President Macron took this posture vis-a-vis Vladimir Putin for some time before he changed his stance when he saw that this attitude would not impact Putin's aggressive behavior in Ukraine.

There is also some gap between political rhetoric and action on the ground. That is why there is a reluctance to use the word ��balancing policy,�� and the expression ��strategic autonomy�� is often used instead. France's balancing policy concerns the geo-strategic rivalry between China and the US and is not linked to rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific.

When you look at the genesis of the French Indo-Pacific strategy, you see that the Chinese factor is essential. There is much concern regarding the expansion of China, the challenges it raises, and so on. In a way, it contradicts the posture of 'balancing strategy.' We see not only the Chinese expansion but also the US-China competition and the worsening of this rivalry as a destabilizing factor. We are certainly trying to mitigate the adverse side effects of China's expansion and the competition between the US and China.

Moreover, we do this by defending international principles and the rule of law, promoting multilateralism, and trying to offer one alternative, among other things. We also support our partners in the region to help them build up their capabilities and allow them to make their own choices, not to be forced or constrained by big powers, and to follow them. I think French commitment is pretty consistent at this point, though there were mixed signals caused by some political statements of the President.

-----Thank you so much. One of your remarks, ��We should not see balancing policy and tensions as two together,�� caught my attention. What do you mean by that, more precisely?

We should not connect these concepts because balancing policy does not imply that France will abandon its principles or disregard Taiwan as a French interest. France's interests and values remain relatively consistent over time. The balancing policy is simply a way of presenting and communicating our strategic autonomy.

France and Japan, for the future cooperation

-----After the AUKUS shock, France has sought further cooperation with partners such as ASEAN, India, and Japan. Considering current situations in the Indo-Pacific, what do you think are Japan and France's prospects in the region?

First, I will start by saying that Japan has been an essential partner in the Indo-Pacific for France since the beginning. We share many common values and interests with Japan in the Indo-Pacific. For instance, one element we share is the same geographical definition of the region, which covers from the east coast of Africa to the eastern Pacific. This means that we can do things together in Africa, in the western Indian Ocean, and even with India, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific Island countries.

One of the most important developments in recent years has been the renewed interest in the Pacific Island region. In 2022, China signed a security treaty with the Solomon Islands that surprised everybody. Wang Yi traveled in the region and went so far as to propose a regional partnership agreement, which the Pacific Islands Forum rejected. In reaction to China's advance in Oceania, many important players have been reinvesting in the region diplomatically, economically, and militarily.

In this context, the Pacific Island region is one of the most critical areas where Japan and France can expand cooperation. Japan is an essential ODA provider and has been a key player in strengthening security and military cooperation in recent years. France, on the other hand, is a resident power with territories there.

Japan established a consular office in Noumea in January 2023. In recent months, we have also seen a joint military exercise between the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force and the French military in New Caledonia. This is a very interesting development. We also have strong interests in maritime security, governance, and scientific research. So, I think we can expand our cooperation in this area and extend support to countries in the region on climate change mitigation, adaptation, and HADR activities. Japan hosted the Pacific Islands Leaders Meeting (PALM) this July. New Caledonia and French Polynesia participated in this summit. I think these are very good trends. Japan has a very long history and experience in the maritime sector, especially in Southeast Asia, Pacific Island countries, and in capacity building in eastern Africa. Therefore, I think there is plenty of room for Japan and France to develop our relationship in the Indo-Pacific region.

-----What has been the state of bilateral relations between France and Japan in recent years, and what challenges have affected the development of their cooperation?

There has been a stagnation in bilateral relations over the past few years. For example, the new roadmap for French-Japanese cooperation adopted last December took a long time to be publicly announced by the authorities, and even when it was, it was very modest and unremarkable. There are no new or spectacular developments in the roadmap. I think it results from frustration on both sides about developing a bilateral relationship. For France, we feel that Japan has not made many concrete proposals for cooperation. Nevertheless, concrete proposals for cooperation would take much time due to the nature of the French and Japanese administrative systems.

In addition, there is also some frustration on the French side because Japan is investing a lot in its own defense capability, obviously also with the latest commitment by the Prime Minister to double the defense budget to buy more equipment. For several years, France expected Japan to buy some French defense equipment, but it was still very complicated because Japan is closely tied to the US market, and when it had some opportunities, France could not benefit from a big contract.

So, there have been frustrations like this, but more broadly, there is also an issue of misperception. To be a bit schematic, France might see Japan as too pro-US and too anti-China. France has always been concerned that much communication from the Japanese government is based on keeping an eye on China when cooperation is to be made with France in the region. France does not want to target one country or another specifically, but rather to defend international principles in the region.

Conversely, Japan sees France as being too soft on China and too distant from the US. For example, President Macron's opposition to opening a NATO liaison office in Tokyo triggered many discussions in Japan. Also, President Macron's comments on Taiwan when he returned from his visit to China in March 2023 caused much misunderstanding regarding the position of France. At the time of these remarks, a French frigate was actually sailing into the Taiwan strait, concretely demonstrating the attachment of France to protect freedom of navigation and the rule of Law at sea. Therefore, it is important to look at the finer nuances and complexities of each country's posture.

European Union in the Indo-Pacific Region

-----As the recent EU Council president, France has taken bold steps to shape Europe's Indo-Pacific strategy. How can France leverage its unique position as the only one resident European power in the Indo-Pacific to lead the EU in this vital region?

As you highlighted, France was the first European country to make its Indo-Pacific strategy. It consulted extensively with its neighbors, Germany and the Netherlands, to encourage them to think about their Indo-Pacific strategy and then pushed that through the EU level. Like this, the EU has decided and published its Indo-Pacific strategy.

So, I think France would like to keep this kind of leading rule and ensure that, for example, the EU Indo-Pacific Forum, which was held for the first time under the French Chairmanship in 2022, is institutionalized so that it will be held annually.

Moreover, I think what France would like to do is to try to coordinate European presence more in the region. For instance, back in 2021, there were several naval deployments from European countries to the Indo-Pacific, from France, Germany, and the Netherlands. There was no actual coordination at that time, but I understand that France proposed this coordination to its European partners, though it was quite new. In this way, Europe has recently recognized the Indo-Pacific not only as a strategic interest but also as a security interest.

A dimension of competition among European countries also emerged when Germany wanted to deploy to the Indo-Pacific for the first time. They thought it would be better to go on their own rather than sail next to the French. I understand that France is trying to appear more coordinated in the region, and also, because France's capacities are limited, we are required to work with partners as much as we can to have weight and influence. This year's Pegasus mission, which sees Rafale fighter jets flying to Australia, has been conducted in conjunction with European partners (Germany, Italy, UK, etc.).

It is important to note that France's Indo-Pacific approach complements the European one. In trade and economic cooperation, the EU has competency, and France is putting more effort into the military side of engagement because it has sovereign interests in the Indo-Pacific. Recently, many countries have shown interest in the Indo-Pacific region and issued their Indo-Pacific strategies. Lithuania, for example, is one such country. However, not everyone can expand into the Indo-Pacific region, so it will be important for the EU to work together and promote the rule of law and international principles.

-----As the Indo-Pacific is a new concept for the EU, and with varying stances among member states, it is challenging to create a unified policy. The Ukraine war is Europe's top priority, causing some countries to shift focus away from the Indo-Pacific. What are your thoughts on this?

Not all EU countries have the interest and the capacity to engage in the Indo-Pacific region. However, there are also different reasons for interest in the Indo-Pacific. Poland, for example, is very close to the United States and understands that dealing with the Indo-Pacific and China is a priority for the United States, so it shows interest in the Indo-Pacific region as a way of showing support for the United States. Indeed, EU countries' positions on the Indo-Pacific region are diverse: the EU is now facing Russian aggression in Ukraine. So, to make the Indo-Pacific region a higher priority for the EU is a tough question.

However, regarding broader security interests, the Europeans recognize clear interconnections between the Indo-Pacific and European countries. This is exactly what happened with the COVID-19 pandemic. It started in China and spread throughout the world. When maritime transportation networks are disrupted, the European economy is severely affected. Of course, the war in Ukraine is a top priority, but it is clear that China supports Russia in this case, so Europe recognizes that the two theaters in Europe and Asia are linked.

Recently, we also learned that North Korea is providing Russia with ammunition and other equipment. On the other hand, South Korea is becoming a significant player in defense equipment and providing equipment to Poland. Asian actors are also expanding into the European continent and playing a strategic role. Japan has also played an important role in the reconstruction of the Balkans and support to Ukraine. The partnership between China and Russia has become closer, and even though there is much mistrust between the two countries, they are coordinating some activities together, whether it is activities in Asia or broader cyber attacks. So, it is very valuable to be able to exchange ideas and information with players in the Indo-Pacific region.