François Mitterrand was elected as the President of French Republic in 1981. The article asks if this change of government in France had a substantial and direct effect to the foreign policy of the country, especially when one compares it with the previous administration.
It starts with an examination of the existing literature of the relationship between national politics and foreign policy. The author states that there is no direct and mechanical effect between the change in national politics and in the diplomacy; however, the latter is activated by the former when some conditions are met.
When analyzing the case of “Euro-missile Crisis” in the early 1980’s, we clearly see that the Mitterrand Presidency has changed its policy stance as compared to the opposition period and also to its predecessor. The Mitterrand Presidency showed a clear preference to the “Atlantist” policy, and supported the deployment of the U.S Pershing Missile in West Europe. At least this case leads to the fact that there is an obvious shift in policy that has been made by the change of government, and that the literature stressing on the continuity in French diplomacy doomed to be false.
In fact, the reasons of the decision made by the new presidency were multi-faced: 1) to give assurance to the U.S. that the new presidency, even there are Communists inside the government and to be recognized as the legitimate Left government, 2) to show its electorates the difference compared to the former government, 3) to exclude the possibility that the West Germany possess a nuclear weapon, and finally 4) to keep French strategic independence. But the decision was not clearly taken from the beginning; the above-mentioned policies were consequence of a strategic consideration after failure of the Socialist diplomatic agenda which intended to change the U.S monetary policy and to strengthen North-South cooperation.
The French diplomatic historian Pierre Renouvin and Jean-Baptiste Duroselle pointed out that in the age of democratic governance, political leaders had to be careful about the “mood” generated by the direct and indirect demand from the internal politics. If they are only adaptive to the international environment, it can be contrary an obstacle to the diplomacy. In other words, a skilful diplomacy means to conciliate the state as an actor and as an arena.
After a close examination of the Mitterrand diplomacy in the early 1980’s, we can conclude, despite many miscalculations, that at least the maneuver on missile deployment has been a success as a result of the change of government, and has restore the equilibrium between France and conditions of the New Cold war.

抄録全体を表示