France: Missile Defence à la française

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. Ministère de la Défense, La Loi de Programmation Militaire 2003-2008 (Paris: Délégation à l'Information et à la Communication de la Défense, 2003).

2. Pierre Tran, ‘In Space, France Seeks European Independence from US Capabilities’, Defense News, 19 July 2004.

3. Peter Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996); see also Nicholas Onuf, ‘The New Culture of Security Studies’, Mershon International Studies Review, No. 42 (1998), pp.132–4.

4. Kerry Longhurst and Arthur Hoffmann, ‘German Strategic Culture in Action’, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Aug. 1999), pp.31–49.

5. Latha Varadarajan, ‘Identity and Neoliberal (In)Security’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3 (2004), pp.319–42.

6. Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999).

7. Jill Lovecy, ‘Des Citoyennes à Part Entière: The constitutionalisation of gendered citizenship in France and the parity reforms of 1999-2000’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 35, No. 4 (2000), pp.439–62.

8. Hubert Védrine, Les Cartes de la France à l'heure de la Mondialisation: Dialogue avec Dominique Moïsi (Paris: Fayard, 2000).

9. Samy Cohen, La Résistance des Etats: Les Démocraties face aux défis de la Mondialisation (Paris: Editions de Seuil, 2003).

10. See the contributions of Jørgen Dragsdahl and Mark Smith in this issue.

11. Edward Kolodziej, Making and Marketing Arms: The French Experience and its Implications for the International System (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987), p.3.

12. Sorin Lungu, ‘The US Military-Technological Revolution and the “Europeanization” of the French Defence Industrial Sector during the 1990s’, RUSI Journal, Vol. 149, No. 1 (Feb. 2004), pp.58–63.

13. Varadarajan ‘Identity and Neoliberal (In)Security’ (note 5).

14. Gabrielle Hecht, The Radiance of France: Nuclear Power and French National Identity after World War II (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1998).

15. Justin Vaïsse, French Views on Missile Defence (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2001),  < www.brookings.edu/fp/cusf/analysis/missd.htm > .

16. Ministère de la Défense, Loi de Programmation Militaire (note 1) p.2.

17. Ibid., p.9.

18. Ibid., p.10.

19. Ibid., p.23.

20. Ronja Kempin, Frankreichs Nuklearstrategie vor der Revision?, SWP-Studie 2004/S02 (Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, 2004).

21. Ministère de la Défense, Loi de Programmation Militaire (note 1) p.23.

22. Kolodziej, Making and Marketing Arms (note 11) p.3.

23. Particularly in the 1960s and early 1970s, French governments promoted one or two firms per industry, thus creating so-called national champions. Chirac and Sarkozy revived this policy in 2004. See Stefan Theil, ‘What Could They Be Thinking? France Riles Neighbour Germany with its Efforts to Promote “National Champion” Companies’, Newsweek, 21 June 2004. The earlier strategy was based on the belief that only large firms could compete successfully in global markets. See William Adams, Restructuring the French Economy: Government and the Rise of Market Competition since World War II (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1989) pp.53–4.

24. Hartmut Küchle, ‘Globalisierung in der Rüstungsindustrie: Formen und Auswirkungen auf den deutschen Standort und die Arbeitsplätze’, BICC Paper 32 (Bonn: Bonn International Center for Conversion, Aug. 2003).

25. Mario Pianta, New Technologies across the Atlantic: US Leadership or European Autonomy? (Hemel Hempstead/Tokyo: Harvester Wheatsheaf/United Nations University, 1988).

26. European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, ‘Boeing and EADS announce transatlantic partnership’, Press Release, 23 July 2002,  < www.eads.net/frame/content/en/1024/content/OF00000000400004/4/54/497544.html > .

27. The network of contacts enables exchanges between the public and private sectors within the course of a career: this practice is known as pantouflage.

28. Michael Taverna and Andy Nativi, ‘A Missile Shield For Europe’, Aviation Week & Space Technology, 17 Nov. 2003, pp.28–9.

29. ‘La vocation antimissile du Samp-T s'amplifie’, Air & Cosmos, 28 Aug. 2003, pp.16–20.

30. ‘France, Italy and the UK Sign PAAMS MoU’, Jane's Defence Weekly, 10 April 2002, p.12.

31. ‘US-Konzerne holen EADS zur Raketenabwehr’, Financial Times Deutschland, 20 July 2004.

32. ‘Defense Official Says France Open to Role in Missile Defense’, Space News, 1 Jan. 2004.

33. ‘About-Face. International Missile Defense Cooperation Suffers Setback in U.S., Gains Ground in Europe’, Aviation Week & Space Technology, 14 Feb. 2005, pp.34–5.

34. Ian Davis, ‘NATO and Missile Defence: Stay Tuned This Could Get Interesting’, BASIC Notes: Occasional Papers on International Security Policy (London: British American Security Information Council, 30 June 2004),  < www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/2004NATOMissileDefense-IstanbulSummit.htm > .

35. Ministère de la Défense, Loi de Programmation Militaire (note 1) p.23.

36. Kempin, ‘Frankreichs Nuklearstrategie vor der Revision?’ (note 20).

37. Paul Quilès (for the Commission de la Défense Nationale et des Forces Armées), Rapport d'Information sur les projets américains de défense antimissile, Rapport No 2961 (Paris: Assemblée Nationale, 2001),  < www.assemblee-nationale.fr/legislatures/11/pdf/rap-info/i2961.pdf > .

38. Pierre Lellouche, Guy-Michel Chauveau and Aloyse Warhouver (for the Commission de la Défense Nationale et des Forces Armées), La France et les bombes: les défis de la prolifération des armes de destruction massive, Rapport No 2788 (Paris: Assemblée Nationale, 2000).

39. Xavier deVillepin (commissioned by Commission des Affaires étrangères, de la défense et des forces armées), Rapport d'Information sur la défense antimissile du territoire (NMD) aux Etats-Unis, Rapport No 417 (Paris: Sénat, 1999/2000),  < www.senat.fr/rap/r99-417/r99-4171.pdf > .

40. Jean-Louis Mathieu, La Défense Nationale, (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1996) p.109.

41. Patrick Bratton, ‘France and the Revolution in Military Affairs’, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Aug. 2002), pp.87–112, see esp. pp.96–7.

42. Bernard Lavarini, ‘Bouclier antimissile: Bush a raison’, Le Monde (28 May 2002) for a sample of this argument.

43. Bratton, ‘France and the Revolution in Military Affairs’ (note 41), p.98.

44. Jean-Paul Hébert, ‘Le bouclier antimissile américain objet d'un étonnant plaidoyer contra domo’, Le Débat Stratégique, No. 63 (July 2002),  < www.ehess.fr/cirpes/ds/ds63//bouclier.html > for a sample of this argument.