Latest news with #DeGaulle
Irish Independent
3 days ago
- Politics
- Irish Independent
John Downing: French film that exposed wartime shame has chilling relevance for today's political climate
In 1944, French president Charles de Gaulle rejected the US and British idea that Paris did not have any great importance as a military target because, by then, World War II was well on its way to a decisive Allied victory. But for De Gaulle, a symbolic recapture of the French capital was central to retrieving the nation's traumatised soul after the shock German over-run in 1940.
Arab News
3 days ago
- Business
- Arab News
Energy is at the heart of any nation's digital expansion
Artificial intelligence and its accompanying infrastructure of data centers have become a defining technology within the global economic competition. This new need will have a direct impact on energy, with an expected surge in electricity demand. The need for high-capacity and stable power is making energy infrastructure a central focus of any nation's digital expansion. Indeed, without ample energy capacity, countries will be left behind. Needless to say, this puts the Gulf region in a great position, yet Europe will still need to figure out its way. There is no doubt that after years of misguided all-green obsession, many are now waking up to harsh realities. The disconnect between policymakers and the real world was symbolized in the energy field. We are finally witnessing a return to sanity. One energy source that had been attacked was perhaps one of the most efficient, even on emissions: nuclear power. It was what put France back on top of the European order and brought Germany to its knees. I have written this often and will never tire of saying it: Merci, Gen. de Gaulle. Indeed, today, if France has a greater chance at leadership in AI and tech, it is thanks to its nuclear power. It is also worth noting that on this point, President Emmanuel Macron was capable of making a U-turn and, after being negative on it, has once again pushed forward on nuclear energy. We are also seeing other European countries follow the same path. Italy's plan focuses on deploying advanced small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors to complement renewable energy sources. The government anticipates finalizing the legislative framework by the end of 2027, with projections indicating that nuclear energy could supply between 11 percent and 22 percent of the country's electricity by 2050. We are finally witnessing a return to sanity Khaled Abou Zahr In Germany, while the previous government completed a nuclear phase-out in 2023, the new administration under Chancellor Friedrich Merz is reconsidering this. Merz has criticized the earlier shutdowns and is exploring the development of small modular reactors, as well as potential collaborations with France on nuclear initiatives. The main issue with renewables is their intermittent nature and the continuous need for subsidies. Moreover, in a time of unstable international trade, most equipment comes from China, which poses a supply chain risk. We saw during the global pandemic how the pharma industry supply chain suffered due to its location in India. When it comes to manufacturing for solar, most production takes place in China. This is also a geopolitical and influential advantage for Beijing. While it is clear there are geopolitical consequences to any country's energy mix, there should never be a political, dogmatic view on economic decisions. This is the mistake Europe fell into for energy, and many other business and societal decisions. The European left, in alliance with Green parties, has imposed policies driven by ideology and not economic realism. Among these decisions were the hasty decommissioning of nuclear power, unrealistic decarbonization goals, and placing renewables on a pedestal. This is a topic that has deepened the divide between left and right. Will Europe be capable of shifting this trend and making the right decisions? It is clear that without nuclear power this will be impossible, and relying solely on renewables is a dangerous policy. Redundancies in power sources and distribution are an absolute necessity. The widespread blackout that hit Spain and Portugal last April is a stark reminder. The crisis was caused by a loss in a substation in Granada, followed by failures in Badajoz and Seville, which subsequently caused Spain's grid to disconnect from the broader European network and collapse within seconds. Political figures and energy executives pointed to Spain's increasing reliance on solar and wind power as a major contributing factor. This is also why, following this incident, other experts have ruled out a short-term rapid transition to net zero and said that the immediate exclusion of fossil and nuclear energy was unrealistic. Renewables are heavily subsidized in Europe Khaled Abou Zahr Another important point is that renewables are heavily subsidized in Europe, which can complicate the region's ability to compete globally. On top of that, layers of subsidies are being added — not just for renewable energy generation, but also for emerging technologies, startups, and scale-ups. While these measures seek to enhance innovation and energy transition, they ultimately place a financial burden on taxpayers and risk undermining Europe's competitiveness. In many cases, the main beneficiaries are external suppliers, such as Chinese manufacturers of solar panels or foreign providers of cloud infrastructure, rather than European industry or innovation. The reality is that following this new technology dominance race, there will be a need to do more than push fast for nuclear energy. For France, nuclear energy accounted for about 40 percent of its total energy supply. Moreover, nuclear power accounts for 65 percent of electricity generation. This is what has enabled France to position itself as the cornerstone of the new AI-led economy while other European countries lag. The announcement of new AI-focused data centers in Arizona close to nuclear plants confirms this trend. It is also worth mentioning that beyond ideological views, Paris maintains one of the lowest-carbon electricity grids globally. As we notice a bigger competition, not to say war, for AI with clear geopolitical alignments, Europe will need to sort out its energy mix and reintroduce nuclear energy as a main provider. There is no time to lose on this path, and the risks are too high to ignore. They should be inspired by the strategic foresight of Gen. de Gaulle, who understood the geopolitical independence nuclear energy would grant France. • Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, a space-focused investment platform. He is CEO of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.
Spectator
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Can France's centre-right be revived?
On Sunday, Bruno Retailleau was elected president of Les Republicains – France's mainstream centre-right party. Just a few years ago, his election would have drawn significant attention across Europe, as the rise of a new leader within a major European political force. Today, however, Les Republicains are the shadow of their former selves: a diminished political party on the right fighting for survival. In the 2022 presidential election, the party suffered a catastrophic result, receiving just 4.78 per cent of the vote – an all-time low for the party of De Gaulle, Chirac and Sarkozy. Today, polls show the party barely averaging 10 per cent support ahead of the 2027 presidential election, regardless of the candidate. Squeezed between Marine Le Pen's ascendant National Rally and the fading remnants of Macronism – and challenged on the right by the insurgent Éric Zemmour – Les Républicains struggle to find a viable path back to power. It has now been 13 years since they last held the Élysée. Retailleau faces a seemingly impossible task. A senator from Vendée, he is a seasoned local politician and skilled parliamentarian. He is also a capable orator, at least within the gilded and frescoed walls of the upper house of the French parliament. He
Ya Biladi
22-03-2025
- Politics
- Ya Biladi
France's secret role in Spain's atomic bomb plans for Western Sahara
After Morocco regained Tan-Tan and Tarfaya in 1958, Franco's Spain grew increasingly concerned that this wave of independence could eventually force it to relinquish Western Sahara, a territory it had occupied since 1884. To counter this threat, Franco sought support from another military leader-turned-politician: Charles de Gaulle, who had recently come to power in France. Both leaders shared a common distrust of Morocco's ambitions to restore its Cherifian Empire. This was evident in France's role in facilitating Mauritania's independence on November 28, 1960—a move that Morocco refused to recognize until 1969. According to Francisco Gómez Balcázar in The Secret of the Spanish Atomic Bomb, this Franco-French alliance extended beyond politics. In the early 1960s, De Gaulle and Franco struck a deal allowing Spain to develop nuclear weapons, including setting up a reactor outside the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.S. nuclear watchdog. This cooperation, which angered the United States, transformed Spain's nuclear ambitions from a fringe scientific initiative—started by a group of Spanish researchers in 1948—into a state-controlled project. Luck also played in Spain's favor. In 1966, an American military plane crashed into the waters off Galicia, carrying two nuclear bombs. Spanish authorities managed to seize one of them, gaining crucial insights into nuclear technology. As Balcázar notes, «This crash was a catalyst for Spain's nuclear energy officials, reigniting their program». The Loss of Sidi Ifni Accelerates Spain's Nuclear Plans By 1969, Franco faced growing pressure from Morocco's southern liberation army and was ultimately forced to cede Sidi Ifni. This loss only reinforced Spain's determination to develop an atomic bomb, which Franco planned to test in Western Sahara in the early 1970s—mirroring De Gaulle's earlier decision to conduct France's first nuclear test in the French-occupied eastern Sahara. However, Spain's nuclear ambitions never materialized. King Hassan II had made reclaiming Western Sahara a cornerstone of his reign, especially after surviving two coup attempts in 1971 and 1972. In the lead-up to the Green March on November 6, 1975, he mounted a strong international diplomatic campaign, even securing an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice to support Morocco's claim over the territory. Franco's death further sealed the fate of Spain's nuclear program. His successor, King Juan Carlos, had no interest in waging war against Morocco to maintain Spain's hold on the Sahara. Instead, he focused on reconciling the Spanish people with the monarchy after decades of division under Franco. Spain's nuclear ambitions officially came to an end when the Socialist Party took power in 1981. In 1987, Prime Minister Felipe González's government ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, closing the chapter on Spain's nuclear aspirations for good.
The Guardian
15-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
As Trump and Putin menace Europe, I say this: vive le Churchillo-Gaullisme!
Should we all be Gaullists now? In the language of France's most important European partner, the answer is 'Jein!' (a German word combining ja for yes and nein for no). Yes, Emmanuel Macron has been right to warn us ever since he became France's president in 2017 that, discerning a long-term trend of US disengagement, Europe should be ready to defend itself. Now, confronted with Donald Trump, a rogue US president putting in question an 80-year-old American commitment to the defence of Europe against Russia, lifelong Euro-Atlanticists like me must acknowledge that we need not just a Europe with more hard power – something for which I have always argued – but also the real possibility of European 'strategic autonomy'. Oui, Monsieur le Président, you were right. Yet en mȇme temps (at the same time), to deploy Macron's signature trope, we should answer 'Non'. For De Gaulle, a great man of his time, believed that defence should be the exclusive province of the nation state; that the emerging European Community should be a Europe of states (a disunited version of the European Union to which today's hard-right populist nationalist parties dream of returning); that Britain should be excluded from the European project (hence his famous 'Non!' to British membership in that emerging community); and that Europe should be constructed as a counterweight to the US, having close relations with Russia and China. Above all, though, any realistic plan for defending ourselves against Vladimir Putin's Russia must start with the only serious military organisation in Europe today, which is Nato. This is where you find the assigned, trained and interoperable forces from all European Nato countries, the command and control, the complex coordinated air operations, the detailed plans for an allied reaction force to rush to the defence of the eastern frontier and a credible ladder of (mainly American) nuclear deterrence. The EU has nothing remotely comparable. History might have been different if the original idea to build a more integrated Europe around defence had not been killed by the votes of Gaullists (and communists) in the French national assembly in 1954. For as De Gaulle's biographer Julian Jackson reminds us, he 'attacked no supranational organisation more ferociously than the abortive European Defence Community'. So whatever your original ideological preference, Gaullist or Atlanticist, if you're serious about the defence of Europe, you start from Nato – and then see how we can Europeanise it as fast as possible. But equally, faced with the radical unreliability of Trump, we do need to think afresh about extending the reach of French and British nuclear deterrence. The EU is now becoming a significant player in the field of defence, especially in supporting Ukraine and for defence procurement. And because the EU and Nato both contain Putin-friendly blockers such as Hungary's Viktor Orbán, some of the cutting-edge defence commitments will require 'coalitions of the willing' like that for Ukraine on which the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, has been working closely with the French president. A former French minister for Europe, Clément Beaune, tweeted a photo of the improvised meeting of European, Turkish and Canadian leaders that Starmer convened in London with the three words 'Les États unis' (the united states). But there's all the difference in the world between being 'united states' and being the United States, les États-Unis – a single state capable of deploying huge lethal power on a single executive decision. So the challenge for Europe is to make a rapid, coherent, credible transition from the security we have enjoyed for almost 80 years, in a US-dominated alliance, to a Europe without a single hegemon that is nonetheless capable of defending itself against the most aggressive great power. That's a tall order. To be a non-hegemonic great power in product regulation or trade policy is one thing; doing it in the hardest area of hard power, the one that calls on young men and women to sacrifice their lives, is quite another. There are three major obstacles to achieving this ambitious but now existential goal. The first is the hugely disparate historical self-understandings of European countries when it comes to national security. In an international crisis, every British prime minister thinks they should be Winston Churchill and every French president, De Gaulle. The national role models of other European leaders are less clear cut – the postwar chancellor Konrad Adenauer for Germany? The inter-war Marshal Józef Piłsudski for Poland? The 1990s 'hour of Europe' foreign minister Jacques Poos for Luxembourg? – but their strategic instincts and cultures are equally diverse. The approach Europe needs is therefore Churchillo-Gaullism, combining the best of our continent's two most influential traditions when it comes to a world at war. That's a formula to which not just Macron and Starmer but perhaps even a majority of European leaders may subscribe. Second, the policies we need are European but our democratic politics are still national. Behind last week's headline figure of the EU devoting €800bn to defence is actually just €150bn of complicated European funding. The bulk of the headline figure is merely a licence for individual member states to spend another €650bn in aggregate. Every national leader announcing increased defence spending explains how this will create jobs in their own country. Yet, besides more arms production, Europe desperately needs its rationalisation and consolidation. Europe has about 170 major weapon systems compared with about 30 for the US. Consolidation would mean agreeing that this kind of fighter plane should be produced in, say, Italy and Sweden, closing a factory in France, while that sort of air defence system should be produced in France and Britain, closing a factory in Germany. Imagine how easy that will be. All this when most European countries are heavily indebted and their ageing populations are crying out for increased expenditure on health, social care, pensions and so on. This brings us to the last obstacle, which is perfectly captured in something Churchill said to De Gaulle when the latter awarded him the Croix de la Libération (Liberation Cross) in 1958. Contrasting the complicated challenges of the 1950s with the single clear objective of their wartime partnership, Churchill observed, 'It is harder to summon, even among friends and allies, the vital unity of purpose amidst the perplexities of a world situation which is neither peace nor war.' That's exactly where we are now, somewhere between peace and war. As we have seen in recent days, at the first sign of the possibility of a ceasefire in Ukraine our publics are desperate to believe that we can quickly revert to our old post-1989 peacetime ways. It is now the duty of European leaders not just to rekindle the fighting spirit of Churchill and De Gaulle but also to explain honestly to voters that we face another long struggle – and if we really want peace we must prepare for war. So I say: Vive l'Europe! Vive le Churchillo-Gaullisme! Timothy Garton Ash is a historian, political writer and Guardian columnist
