For centuries, France and the US have been friends, allies and competitors. Both have been world powers, models of liberal democracy, and achieved democratization via revolution. France was the first ally of the new US, having provided military support during the revolutionary war, the first of many times the countries would collaborate militarily.

On his recent trip to Washington, French President Emmanuel Macron tried to use this history to reinforce the bilateral relationship today, potentially giving France more influence over US President Donald Trump’s unpredictable administration. But Macron’s affability and bonhomie cannot obscure the fact that the two countries are operating under very different circumstances than in the past.

During the Cold War, Gen. Charles de Gaulle wanted France to serve as a bridge between the West and East. This implied being a faithful US ally in good times and bad, and a fair-weather friend to the Soviet Union and China.

Today, Macron wants France to serve as a bridge within the West: Between the US and Europe. This might seem an easier task given the two sides’ shared history and values. And it is that history and those values that Macron tried to invoke as he established himself as a defender of liberal democracy and internationalism, with language and vision marked by US-style optimism.

Nor is this the first time a French president has acted like an American leader. But Nicolas Sarkozy, who coined for himself the nickname “Sarko the American,” was more eager to align himself with George W. Bush, especially when it came to foreign policy. Macron, by contrast, is espousing the values and adopting the rhetoric of Barack Obama.

Beneath the veneer of mutual affection between France and the US on display in Washington, Emmanuel Macron’s visit to was marked by deep disagreements.

Dominique Moisi

Neither has much in common with Trump, who seems utterly disinterested in sustaining US global leadership. The challenge ahead for Macron may thus turn out to be even more formidable than the one confronted by de Gaulle.

If Macron’s visit were a soccer game, it would have included some beautifully executed plays, such as his speech to the US Congress, before ending in a draw. Beneath the veneer of mutual affection on display in Washington, Macron’s visit was marked by deep disagreements, including over climate change and the Iran nuclear deal.

His declaration that “there is no Planet B” has not elicited any substantive move by Trump to rejoin the Paris climate agreement. And despite the mention of a new, enlarged deal with Iran, Trump continues to embrace the radical visions of his new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton.

By establishing a friendly public rapport with Trump, Macron may even have put himself at risk. After all, it will not look good if Macron is closely aligned with someone who makes catastrophic strategic decisions or ends up in the jaws of the US justice system. 

If that closeness — those appeals to Trump’s vanity — were producing positive outcomes along the way, Macron’s efforts might be worthwhile. But to flatter Trump is one thing; to obtain significant diplomatic and trade concessions from him is another. Macron seems to have found success on only one of those fronts.

By establishing himself as a voice of reason, moderation and responsibility, he tried to lay the groundwork for his emergence as a real agent of change. He does not want his legacy to comprise simply powerful speeches; he wants to tackle real issues affecting France, Europe and the world. But it remains far from clear whether his tactics will work, particularly with regard to Trump.

The question is whether the alternative approach to Trump — the far less friendly, more businesslike approach of German Chancellor Angela Merkel — will produce better results. It seems unlikely, but when it comes to securing actual concessions, at least she cannot do much worse.