The role of the Prime Minister is not predominant in matters of foreign policy. It is even less so when he does not have a majority in the National Assembly.
It is indeed Emmanuel Macron who will continue to set the direction in this regard, especially since his positions are not very different from those of Michel Barnier. If there is at least one area where continuity prevails over change, it is diplomacy. Unfortunately...
It is very likely that with some disbelief the diplomats received the appointment of the new Minister of Foreign Affairs and the one responsible for European affairs. While «heavyweights» or experienced diplomats were expected, the predictions were thwarted. It is newcomers who are now at the helm of a very troubled French diplomacy.
Jean-Noel Barrot and Benjamin Haddad are inexperienced but are close to the President of the Republic, This indicates that the latter and his diplomatic cell will retain control over foreign policy, and that the Quai d’Orsay will continue to confine itself to a role of representation and communication.
Indeed, although Jean-Noël Barrot has a rather remarkable academic background and an impressive and rapid political career, he was not expected to make an impact at international level.
As for Benjamin Haddad, a former UMP member, he came to the Macron camp during his time in the party.’Atlantic Council And an interview he conducted with Emmanuel Macron at that time. This passage in an American think tank that is also a lobbying group may raise questions. Committed to promoting the transatlantic relationship, it is run by high-ranking or former high-ranking officials of the American diplomacy (Chuck Hagel, Susan Rice, Richard Holbrooke…).
The two ministers are very committed to Ukraine, which forms the core of their public positions internationally. Benjamin Haddad, for his part, has made a strong mark by supporting the Netanyahu government., justifying violations of international law by the «necessity for Israel to defend itself».
Asked about the issue on TF1 on Sunday 22 September, Michel Barnier appeared to be placing the emphasis on the Israeli side, while recalling, in his experience in politics, the necessity of a Palestinian state coming into being.
In the current context and after the massive vote by the Knesset last July against the creation of a Palestinian state, everyone knows very well that this is a pious vow and that without colossal pressure on the Netanyahu government, nothing will happen. The turmoil in the Middle East is underway. French diplomacy had set as its primary objective avoiding an escalation in Lebanon. It did not succeed. Stéphane Séjourné’s numerous trips to the country yielded no proven results. France does not intend, for the time being, to move the lines in a conflict in which, by the way, neither of the protagonists expects anything more from it.
In the opposition between Gaullists and Atlantists that for a time animated the diplomats, the one who was Minister of Foreign Affairs under Jacques Chirac It will probably not return to the Gaullist tradition of independence, of a France leading large international coalitions that advocate just causes, and of a facilitator of dialogue between the North and the South.. The political context does not allow it, and Michel Barnier's personal convictions are quite distant from those of Dominique de Villepin.
The time has come for Atlanticism and a docile Europe towards the United States. It is likely that we will witness another attempt to revive the Franco-German partnership. It will probably be in vain, as we no longer look in the same direction.
Nevertheless, it is certain that one can expect more professionalism from Michel Barnier and Jean-Noël Barrot in the expression and formulation of a diplomatic line defined at the Elysee that was not the case with their predecessors. The Prime Minister is an experienced man who is used to negotiating on an international level, unlike his predecessor. Jean-Noël Barrot is not a party apparatchik. Unless there is a change in direction, the form will be more in line with what we rightly expect from French diplomacy: less partisan and more up to the mark.
The new Director of the MEAE, Aurélien Lechevallier, is a Macronist of the first order, but above all a proven diplomat with the necessary experience and credentials (several positions abroad, head of the very powerful Directorate-General for Globalization, Culture, Education and International Development), which are required for the position. A consensual and experienced profile that contrasts with that of his predecessor.
Changes to the Elysée diplomatic cell would also be welcome given the poor diplomatic record. Indeed,The denial by the DGSE to explain the diplomatic failures does not convince many people, Whether it is the calamitous African policy, the abandonment of the Israeli-Palestinian file before October 7th, or the failure to help Lebanon to initiate a positive dynamic or to preserve it from escalation in the Middle East.
The upcoming large movement of ambassadors (United Nations, Moscow, Tokyo...) could see a major redistribution of essential functions in which Michel Barnier will have a say.
It is only after the presidential election, if there is a real political will, that France could resume a foreign policy of greatness and national independence. This is not about believing that France will decide everything everywhere. But that it will set a course and take positions based on its own interests without outrageous foreign interference. A foreign policy that is in line with its republican values and its rich history. The Quai d’Orsay will have to be placed at the center of the diplomatic apparatus with women and men committed to restoring the lost prestige of French diplomacy rather than contenting themselves with believing in the superiority of the model of Western democracies, exhausted and widely discredited by all the concessions made in Gaza.
French 
English 
Chinese 
Arabic