Greenpeace claims French resumption of nuclear trade with Russia

Environmental campaign group Greenpeace hit out at the resumption of nuclear trade between France and Russia during its war with Ukraine after activists observed the loading of a tanker in northern France with reprocessed uranium bound for Russia.


Issued on: 18/11/2025 - RFI

This photograph taken on 20 March, 2023, shows cylinders of uranium from the Russian cargo ship the Baltiyskiy 202, unloaded at the port of Dunkirk, northern France. 

AFP - SAMEER AL-DOUMY

Greenpeace published video that it said its activists shot on Saturday of around 10 containers with radioactive labels going onto a cargo ship in Dunkirk.

The Panamanian-registered ship, the Mikhail Dudin, is regularly used to carry enriched or natural uranium from France to St Petersburg, according to Greenpeace.

Saturday's consignment was the first of reprocessed uranium to be observed for three years, it added.

"The resumption of this trade once again shows France’s dependence on Russia," Pauline Boyer, the head of Greenpeace France's nuclear campaign, told RFI.


The images released by Greenpeace came two days ahead of a meeting in Paris between the French president, Emmanuel Macron and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to discuss Ukraine's air defence systems.

"Despite the French government’s commitments to support Ukraine — which is, fortunately, the case — on the other hand, there is ongoing collaboration with Rosatom, the Russian nuclear company, which is indirectly contributing to the financing of the war."

Rosatom has occupied the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant for more than three and a half years.

"It has made itself complicit in crimes committed with the Russian army against the nuclear plant’s employees," Boyer added.

"It is outrageous that French nuclear companies — EDF, Orano, Framatome — continue to collaborate with Rosatom."

Greenpeace cries scandal as France continues to import Russian uranium

French state-controlled energy giant Electricité de France (EDF) signed a 600-million-euro deal in 2018 with a Rosatom subsidiary, Tenex, for the recycling of reprocessed uranium.

These operations have not been affected by international sanctions over the Ukraine war.

Rosatom has the only facility in the world - at Seversk in Siberia - capable of carrying out key parts of the conversion of reprocessed uranium to enriched reprocessed uranium.

Uranium can be reprocessed so it can be reenriched and reused. With uranium prices rising again on international markets, it is increasingly worthwhile for power companies to seek reprocessing of spent fuel.

Only about 10 percent of the reenriched uranium sent back to France by Russia is used at its Cruas nuclear power plant, in southern France, the only one in the country that can use enriched reprocessed uranium, according to Greenpeace.

Macron hopes trip to former Soviet states will secure uranium, counter Russia

France's energy ministry and EDF have yet to respond publicly to questions on the consignment or trade.

Top politicians in France ordered EDF chiefs to halt uranium trade with Rosatom in 2022 when Greenpeace France revealed the contracts in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

France said in March 2024 that it was considering the possibility of building its own conversion facility to produce enriched reprocessed uranium.

Greenpeace France Photographs Uranium Loaded on Ship for Export to Russia

Containers were loaded on the cargo ship in the port of Dunkirk, France (Greenpeace France)

Published Nov 17, 2025 4:46 PM by The Maritime Executive

Greenpeace is calling for an end to the uranium trade between France and Russia after reporting that it has resumed after a nearly three-year hiatus. The group released pictures of containers with spent uranium being loaded onto a cargo ship in the port of Dunkirk and bound for Russia.

At least 10 containers of uranium, clearly marked with dangerous cargo symbols, were observed arriving in the port of Dunkirk, France, on Saturday, November 15, and being loaded aboard the cargo ship Mikhail Dudin (3,030 dwt). Built in 1996, the general cargo ship is owned by a company based in Hong Kong and operates under the Panama flag. The vessel departed France midday on Saturday and reports its destination as Ust-Luga, Russia, a run that Greenpeace says it regularly makes carrying enriched or natural uranium.

France, according to Greenpeace, is dependent on Russia to take its uranium that was spent and reprocessed, as Russia has the only plant in the world that carries out the operation of converting the reprocessed uranium. It undergoes conversion and re-enrichment, with 10 percent sent back to France according to Greenpeace. They report that France’s EDF plans to use reprocessed uranium at its 1300 MWe reactors. Between 1994 and 2013, they report 600 tonnes were used in the four reactors of Cruas-Meysse.

Greenpeace says it protested the shipments in 2022, leading the French government in September 2022 to halt the trade. It had only been resumed in 2021 after previously being halted in 2010. Orano, which supports the nuclear industry, EDF, and Rosatom, are reported to participate in the trade, which sees reprocessed material sent to Russia and a portion returned for re-use in France.

“Emmanuel Macron repeatedly states the need to develop our economic, technological, industrial, and financial independence, particularly from Russia, which he describes as a threat to France and Europe,” said Pauline Boyer, nuclear campaign manager for Greenpeace France. The group points out, however, that the resumption of URT shipments to Russia represents a “disconnect between the French President’s words and actions.”

They are calling for France to report the quantity of reprocessed uranium exported to Russia since 2022, as well as intervening to stop the exports. They are demanding a termination of all import and export contracts.

Greenpeace believe that France has quietly continued the trade because it has massive stockpiles, approximately 35,000 tonnes of reprocessed uranium in warehouses. They believe the underlying objective is to dispose of cumbersome stockpiles of radioactive waste, noting that 90 percent becomes stored waste.

Greenpeace believes that among the future sanctions being discussed for Russia’s energy trade would include blocks on Rosatom’s nuclear trade. It says they are being considered in addition to the continuing blocks on Russian gas and oil. However, they want France to move more aggressively to end the trade immediately.
 

As faith in the US wavers, can France’s nuclear umbrella deter Russia?

A pillar of French sovereignty and source of national pride, France’s nuclear deterrent has long served as a symbol of the country’s independence from Washington. But as Europe’s faith in American protection wavers, does France’s nuclear umbrella offer a realistic alternative?


Issued on: 06/03/2025 

By: Benjamin DODMAN

France has close to 300 nuclear warheads, which can be fired from aircraft based in France or from submarines. © Christophe Ena, AP


French President Emmanuel Macron has offered to hold talks on extending the protection offered by France’s nuclear arsenal to its European partners, amid fears of an American disengagement from Europe.

While the US has made no mention of plans to withdraw the nuclear umbrella that has protected the continent since the Cold War, its dramatically shifting stance on Ukraine, Russia and NATO has sparked alarm across Europe about the strength of America’s decades-long commitment to European security.

In a measure of the mounting anxiety, the leaders of Poland, Latvia and Lithuania – countries closely aligned with Washington – all welcomed Macron’s offer on Thursday as they gathered in Brussels for an emergency summit on European security.

That offer has, in fact, been on the table for years. The difference is that France’s European partners are now taking an interest, eager for security alternatives should US President Donald Trump leave them to dry – at the mercy of Russia.

Read more'We should have woken up earlier': Europe races to rearm as old alliances falter

Addressing the French public on the eve of the summit, Macron described Russia as a “threat to France and Europe” and said he had decided “to open the strategic debate on the protection of our allies on the European continent by our (nuclear) deterrent”. He added: “Europe’s future does not have to be decided in Washington or Moscow.”

Distrust of America

The French nuclear deterrent is rooted in a lingering distrust of its American ally that dates back to the 1956 Suez Crisis, when Washington forced France and Britain to abandon efforts to recapture the strategic Suez Canal in a humiliating setback for Europe’s declining colonial powers.

Seen as an American “betrayal”, Suez convinced the French to develop their own nuclear deterrent in order to protect the nation’s “vital interests”.

A decade later, distrust of America and a desire to pursue strategic autonomy underpinned President Charles de Gaulle’s decision to withdraw France from NATO’s integrated command, resulting in the removal of US military assets from French soil.

Over the years, successive French leaders have urged European allies to reduce their reliance on the US – none more so than Macron, who has repeatedly called on Europe to guarantee its own security.

Read more  France pushes shift to ‘wartime economy’ as US turns its back on Ukraine

As Washington turns its back on Ukraine, warms to an aggressive Russia and cuts Europe out of peace talks, French officials are now feeling vindicated. One analyst described the continent’s current predicament as “Macron’s told-you-so moment”.

05:59Focus © France 24

France’s ‘vital interests’

France is one of two nuclear powers in Europe, along with Britain, which is no longer part of the European Union and relies on US input to maintain its nuclear arsenal.

French nuclear deterrence is strictly conceived as defensive, designed to protect the country’s “vital interests”. The deliberately vague nature of these interests has traditionally given France greater leeway compared to Britain, whose nuclear capabilities are explicitly assigned to the defence of NATO.

Since a 2020 keynote speech, Macron has said that France's “vital interests” have a “European dimension” – comments that he reiterated in recent days. His predecessors have made similar statements in the past, with former president François Mitterrand once touting the need for a “European doctrine” on nuclear deterrence.

“Maintaining a certain vagueness about France’s vital interests is at the heart of the ‘strategic ambiguity’ that underpins nuclear deterrence,” said Alain De Neve, a researcher at the Royal Higher Institute for Defence in Brussels.

The idea, he added, “is to keep opponents in the dark about the scope of France's nuclear umbrella”.

Keep adversaries guessing

Nuclear deterrence involves maintaining ambiguity about which circumstances would lead to the use of nuclear weapons, in order to prevent a potential aggressor from calculating risks.

In this case, it means striking a balance between giving substance to French claims of a vested interest in Europe’s defence and avoiding detail about how far Paris would go to defend the continent.

France “likes to remind people of its capabilities in order to be credible in its deterrence”, said Emmanuelle Maitre, a senior research fellow at France's Foundation for Strategic Research.

“But there’s also an element of ambiguity, because it’s not a question of telling our adversary exactly what our red lines are,” she added. “No nuclear power does this.”

A French nuclear-armed submarine pictured at sea during a visit by President Emmanuel Macron to mark Bastille Day on July 14, 2017. © Fred Tanneau, AFP

Engaging in a constructive and permanent dialogue with its European partners would be an important first step towards extending France’s nuclear umbrella, argued De Neve.

“The mere fact that a permanent dialogue has been established could already leave Russia wondering whether an attack on, say, a Baltic state might lead to a nuclear escalation,” he explained.

Credibility gap

Responding to Macron’s televised address on Thursday, Russian officials lambasted the French leader’s “confrontational speech”, noting that his tough rhetoric was not backed up by military power.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused Macron of “threatening” Russia and warned him against dragging the continent into a wider conflict. The ministry’s spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested the French president might want help measuring his country’s true military size.

The US and Russia possess approximately 88 percent of the world’s total inventory of nuclear weapons, according to the Federation of American Scientists. They are followed at a distance by China, with France in fourth position and Britain in fifth.

“Without US support, the balance of power appears largely unfavourable to France, which has a total of 290 nuclear warheads compared to at least 1,600 deployed warheads and nearly 2,800 stockpiled warheads on the Russian side,” noted Benoît Grémare, a defence analyst at the Université Jean Moulin in Lyon, writing on The Conversation.

“Moving toward a Europeanisation of nuclear force means increasing deterrent capabilities and, therefore, expanding the French arsenal so it can respond to threats affecting all 27 EU member states,” Grémare added.

America’s vastly superior firepower, and the greater diversity of its arsenal, explain why European countries have so far relied on Washington for their protection rather than Paris or London.

In contrast, the discrepancy with Russia’s nuclear arsenal points to a credibility gap for France’s deterrent.

As a lawmaker from the hard-left France Unbowed party argued during a heated debate in parliament this week, if France doesn’t trust mighty Americal to defend it, why should its European partners trust Paris to risk a nuclear war for their sake?

‘French through and through’

Any French commitment to Europe’s defence would also be vulnerable to the type of radical policy U-turn that the Trump administration has ushered in.

France’s European partners are keenly aware that Macron’s pro-Europe camp leads a minority government, and that two-time presidential runner-up Marine Le Pen is fiercely opposed to any sharing of the country’s nuclear deterrence.

Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party, which has long harboured Russian sympathies, supports France's rearmament but to defend French borders only. Her nationalist camp has described talk of extending France’s nuclear umbrella as a betrayal of its strategic independence.

“Sharing (nuclear) deterrence is equivalent to abolishing it,” Le Pen told French lawmakers on Monday. She argued that “unleashing the nuclear fire cannot be separated from national and popular legitimacy”, which is vested solely in the French president, elected by universal suffrage.

01:24

French government debates extending France's 'nuclear umbrella' to all Europe 

© France 24

In his address on Wednesday, Macron reiterated that France’s nuclear deterrent would remain a prerogative of French presidents, describing it as “complete, sovereign, French through and through”.

“The use and production of nuclear weapons is French and will stay French,” added his Defence Minister Sébastien Lecornu, even as he repeated calls for a strategic debate with the rest of Europe.

“While the hand on the button remains that of the head of state, the way in which we contribute to the continent’s global security architecture remains an important debate,” Lecornu said. All European capitals “are going to ask us the question, so we want to be ready to answer”, he added.

Giving ‘concrete form’ to European deterrence

De Neve said European countries would need to “come out into the open” about what they expect from France’s nuclear umbrella – and in what capacity they might contribute.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Brussels, Germany’s outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz said Europe should not give up on US involvement in nuclear deterrence but rather complement it with European resources. His likely successor Friedrich Merz has already called for a discussion on “nuclear sharing” with France and Britain, saying he feared NATO may not survive “in its current form” beyond June.

The issue of whether EU partners could contribute to the cost of maintaining or upgrading the French deterrence is likely to be on the table.

43:09


Any upgrade of France's nuclear arsenal would be extremely costly and require significant logistical and operational changes at a time when governments are already stretched financially. Analysts have warned it could take France up to a decade to increase its arsenal by only 100 warheads.

The point is not to match the American or Russian arsenals, but rather to ensure France maintains its ability to inflict “unacceptable” damage on any foe, cautioned Maitre.

“Although France has a limited arsenal, it is considered sufficient to cause unacceptable damage to its adversary,” she explained. “It was designed to be able to retaliate under any circumstances with weapons considered indestructible. That’s why there is always at least one (nuclear-armed) submarine on patrol, whose location is kept secret.”

In the short term, a change in France’s nuclear doctrine, which prohibits the stationing of atomic weapons outside France, could give an extended French nuclear umbrella greater credibility. Allies could be integrated into French nuclear exercises and training through the provision of air escorts and by the development of supply and logistical support, aiming to create a degree of interoperability.

France possesses Rafale warplanes capable of carrying nuclear missiles. Their deployment across Europe “would give concrete form to European strategic autonomy”, adds Grémare, sending a signal of “European solidarity that would make Moscow’s calculations more difficult”.

FRANCE 24 news coverage disrupted as staff strike against public media merger

FRANCE 24’s broadcasts and digital platforms were disrupted on Monday by a strike called by unions at France Médias Monde, the parent company of FRANCE 24, Radio France Internationale and Arabic-language radio station Monte Carlo Doualiya.


Issued on: 30/06/2025 -
By: FRANCE 24

FRANCE 24 news coverage has been disrupted as staff strike against public media merger. © Martin Lelievre, AFP


A fierce debate is raging in France over reforming public media, and staff at FRANCE 24 parent company France Médias Monde as well as France Télévisions and Radio France are striking on Monday against a proposed merger of France’s public broadcasting sector championed by Culture Minister Rachida Dati.

FRANCE 24 internet and TV journalists have joined the strike, which will cause a temporary disruption in news coverage on Monday and Tuesday.

Watch more

FRANCE 24 and the public media landscape: Who we are and where we come from

A new proposed holding company would unite France Médias Monde (FMM) with France Télévisions, Radio France and the National Audiovisual Institute (INA) under the direction of a single chief executive officer.

The government decided, however, that France Médias Monde, the international arm of the French public broadcasting system that includes FRANCE 24 and RFI, would be excluded from the scope of the holding company when the proposed reform was considered by lawmakers in June.

But unions say the government has “clearly” left the door open to the eventual integration of FMM into the holding company by 2028.

The merger is strongly opposed by public broadcasting unions.

Radio France launched an indefinite strike action on Thursday, calling the proposed holding "extremely dangerous" both for employees and for the independence of news coverage.

"Public broadcasting is a common asset whose strengths must be unified. Today, these forces are scattered," Dati told France’s private Sud Radio on Thursday, calling for "a coherent and coordinated strategy".

Prime Minister François Bayrou also threw his support behind the reform in comments to Radio Télévision Luxembourg on Sunday.

If the motion is defeated, Dati will face a full-fledged parliamentary battle led by Socialist MP Emmanuel Grégoire, who has tabled over 250 of the 935 amendments to the reform bill.

Due to the large number of amendments, it seems unlikely that the debate will proceed to a vote on either Monday or Tuesday.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

#AUKUS

France recalls its ambassadors to US and Australia in submarine deal backlash

BUT NOT THE UK?! 

Issued on: 17/09/2021 - 

Text by: FRANCE 24
Video by: Fraser JACKSON

France on Friday recalled its ambassadors to the United States and Australia in a ferocious row over the scrapping of a submarine contract, an unprecedented step that revealed the extent of French anger against its allies.

President Emmanuel Macron made the exceptional decision due to the “gravity of the announcements on September 15 by Australia and the United States”, said French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian in a statement.

The rare diplomatic backlash against France’s allies came two days after Australia announced the scrapping of a major purchase of French conventional submarines in favour of US nuclear-powered submarines.

The announcement represented “unacceptable behaviour between allies and partners”, said the statement.

Australia in 2016 had chosen France's Naval Group, partly owned by the state, to build 12 conventionally powered submarines, based on France's Barracuda nuclear-powered subs in development.

The contract was worth around 50 billion Australian dollars (€31 billion, $36.5 billion) when announced in 2016.

But on Wednesday, US President Joe Biden, along with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, announced a new US security alliance between their countries that would develop an Australian nuclear-powered submarine fleet.

The Australia-UK-US alliance – dubbed AUKUS – has been strongly condemned by France, with Le Drian calling it “a stab in the back”.

US describes France as 'vital ally'

The United States on Friday reiterated that France was a 'vital ally'.

"France is a vital partner and our oldest ally, and we place the highest value on our relationship," State Department spokesperson Ned Price said in a statement, adding that Washington was hoping to continue the discussion on the issue at the senior level in the coming days, including during the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York next week.

Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby meanwhile acknowledged that telephone talks earlier between US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and French counterpart Florence Parly showed "that there is still much work to do in terms of our defence relationship with France."

France 24's Kethevane Gorjestani reports on the US response to France's decision to withdraw its ambassador 02:15

Australia said it regrets France's decision to recall its ambassador to Canberra but it values its relationship with France and will keep engaging with Paris on many other issues.

"We note with regret France's decision to recall its Ambassador to Australia," a spokesperson for the foreign ministry said in a statement. "Australia values its relationship with France ... We look forward to engaging with France again on our many issues of shared interest, based on shared values."

China calls alliance 'extremely irresponsible'

Beijing described the new alliance as an "extremely irresponsible" threat to regional stability, questioning Australia's commitment to nuclear non-proliferation and warning the Western allies that they risked "shooting themselves in the foot".

China has its own "very substantive programme of nuclear submarine building", Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison argued Friday in an interview with radio station 2GB.

China claims almost all of the resource-rich South China Sea, through which trillions of dollars in shipping trade passes annually, rejecting competing claims from Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.Beijing has been accused of deploying a range of military hardware including anti-ship missiles and surface-to-air missiles there, and ignored a 2016 international tribunal decision that declared its historical claim over most of the waters to be without basis.

'Directly affecting the vision'

The French ambassador recalls from the United States and Australia -- key allies of France -- are unprecedented. Withdrawing envoys is a last resort diplomatic step taken when relations between feuding countries are plunged into crisis but highly unusual between allies.

"I am being recalled to Paris for consultations," France ambassador to the US Philippe Etienne wrote on Twitter. "This follows announcements directly affecting the vision we have of our alliances, of our partnerships and of the importance of the Indo-Pacific for Europe."

Paris sees itself as a major power in the Indo-Pacific due to overseas territories such as New Caledonia and French Polynesia which give it a strategic and military foothold unmatched by any other European country.

The row has for now at least put on hold hopes of a post-Trump renaissance in Paris-Washington relations under Biden and his Secretary of State Antony Blinken, a fluent French speaker who was educated in Paris.

France's European Affairs Minister Clement Beaune also said Friday that Paris was unable to trust Canberra in ongoing European Union trade deal talks following the decision.

France's Europe Minister Clément Beaune calls the AUKUS submarine deal a 'breach of trust' 00:34



France meanwhile called off a gala at its ambassador's house in Washington scheduled for Friday.

The event was supposed to celebrate the anniversary of a decisive naval battle in the American Revolution, in which France played a key role.

AUKUS overshadows Europe’s Indo-Pacific plan

France had pushed for several years for a European strategy for boosting economic, political and defense ties in the region stretching from India and China to Japan and New Zealand.

The EU on Thursday unveiled its plan for the Indo-Pacific. But the AUKUS headlines overshadowed the EU’s own Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at "exploring ways to ensure enhanced naval deployments by EU Member States to help protect the sea lines of communication and freedom of navigation", according to a statement.

A French diplomat told AFP on Friday that Macron received a letter from Australian PM Morrison on Wednesday morning announcing the decision to cancel the submarine deal.

French officials then decided to reach out to the Biden administration "to ask what was going on", the source said. He added that discussions with Washington took place just two to three hours before Biden's public announcement.

Paris had raised the issue of the Indo-Pacific strategy during the June 25 visit to Paris of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, expressing the importance of its submarine program with Australia, the diplomat said.

“We said that is was for us a very important and critical component in our Indo-Pacific strategy,” he said. Blinken met with Macron during the visit.

The French diplomat said Australia never gave any indication to France before of its intention to scrap the submarine deal, including during a meeting between Macron and Morrison in Paris on June 15.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP and AP)

  

AUKUS alliance: Blinken seeks to calm French fury amid diplomatic row

Issued on: 17/09/2021 - 

Video by:

Marc Perelman

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday called France a vital partner in the Indo-Pacific, comments that appeared aimed at calming French anger after the United States, Australia and the UK clinched a deal to supply Australia with submarines. The three countries said on Wednesday they would establish a security partnership for the Indo-Pacific that would help Australia acquire US nuclear-powered submarines and see it scrap a $40 billion French-designed submarine deal. France reacted angrily to the loss of the deal, calling it a "stab in the back." FRANCE 24's French Politics Editor Marc Perelman explains.

  

What does the new AUKUS alliance mean for Japan, South Korea?

Issued on: 17/09/2021 

President Joe Biden announced Wednesday that the United States is forming a new Indo-Pacific security alliance with Britain and Australia that will allow for greater sharing of defense capabilities — including helping equip Australia with nuclear-powered submarines. Northest Asia Editor for Asia Times, Andrew Salmon, explains what this new alliance means for Japan and South Korea.

The Role France Played In The Birth Of The United States – Analysis



Surrender of Lord Cornwallis, a painting by American artist John Trumbull depicting Cornwallis and his army (center) surrendering to French (left) and American (right) troops, at the conclusion of the Siege of Yorktown in 1781.

July 5, 2026 
By Richard Rousseau

Key Takeaways

Geopolitical Revenge, Not Pure Idealism — France’s support for the American Revolution was primarily driven by strategic realpolitik. Louis XVI and Foreign Minister Vergennes saw the rebellion as a golden opportunity to weaken Britain after the humiliating defeat in the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763), not out of ideological solidarity with democracy.

Secret Aid Before Formal Alliance — Before the official 1778 alliance, France provided substantial clandestine support through Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais’ front company (Rodrigue Hortalez et Compagnie), supplying arms, ammunition, and funds to the insurgents while remaining officially neutral.

Dual Motivations & Saratoga Turning Point — French involvement combined state interests (Louis XVI) with Enlightenment-inspired enthusiasm among the elite and figures like Lafayette. The decisive American victory at Saratoga (1777) convinced Versailles to move from covert aid to open alliance, fundamentally shifting the balance of the Revolutionary War.

Analysis

On July 4, 1776, the Thirteen Colonies broke away from the British Crown and declared independence. The support that France provided for the American Revolution is rarely acknowledged by ordinary Americans. Long before the Declaration of Independence was signed, the monarchy of Louis XVI saw the rebellion of the Thirteen Colonies as an opportunity to weaken its British enemy. Two hundred and fifty years later, this founding act continues to fascinate. Amidst geopolitical retribution and Enlightenment ideals, let’s examine the pivotal—and frequently overlooked—role France played in the birth of the United States.

Behind the Declaration of Independence lies another story: that of the long-standing rivalry between the two great European powers of the time. Although the American rebels had just proclaimed their political independence, they were far from winning the war. On the other side of the Atlantic, however, one kingdom was watching the rebellion with growing interest: France.

For the young Louis XVI, the rebellion presented an unexpected opportunity to exact revenge on France’s historic rival. French aid was not spontaneous support for a democratic revolution but rather part of several decades of conflict with its neighbor across the Channel.

The English in America Who Wish to Remain So

As early as the 17th century, France and England were vying for control of North America, the Caribbean, the Indies, and trade routes. At that time, New France stretched from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico. France controlled nearly half of the territories east of the Mississippi. For both monarchies, America was part of a much broader global conflict between the English and the French.

However, this rivalry did not prevent trade. As early as the 17th century, a steady trade developed between the British New England colonies and the French West Indies. Timber, foodstuffs, livestock, and building materials regularly crossed the Atlantic. Even before independence, the French and American colonists maintained close economic ties. At that time, however, no one could imagine breaking with London. The Americans were, above all, Englishmen in America and wished to remain so. The Thirteen Colonies and their 2.5 million inhabitants did not consider themselves citizens of a single nation yet.
The Trauma of the Seven Years’ War

Everything changed with the Seven Years’ War. Beginning in 1756, it pitted England and Prussia against France, Austria, and Russia. This global conflict, fueled by colonial rivalries, concluded in 1763 with the Treaty of Paris. France was forced to cede several territories to England: Canada, part of Louisiana, part of the West Indies, Senegal, and most of its possessions in India, except for a few trading posts, such as Pondicherry and Chandernagore.

This defeat was seen as a national humiliation. From that point on, one idea took hold at Versailles: preventing England from becoming the dominant power. Though a peaceful man by nature, Louis XVI was cautious at first. The kingdom was weakened by the conflict and had to rebuild its navy. France had only one thing on its mind: reclaiming territory and sabotaging the British. From the French perspective, if Great Britain were to lose part of its empire, it would be fitting comeuppance following the humiliation of 1763.

At the same time, the British Crown imposed new taxes on its colonies, notably on sugar, tea, and stamped paper, after the Seven Years’ War cost it a colossal fortune. The infamous “Stamp Act” applied to all printed documents. Since the colonists had no representatives in Parliament, they refused to pay and expressed their anger with the slogan “No taxation without representation.”

Beginning in 1774, Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes, the newly appointed Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under Louis XVI, closely monitored the rising tensions between the British Empire and its Thirteen Colonies. The breaking point was reached in the spring of 1775 when the first clashes broke out between insurgents and British troops in Lexington, Massachusetts. This marked the beginning of the American Revolutionary War.

For Vergennes, this was a historic opportunity. He planned to exploit the crisis to the fullest without rushing France into a premature conflict. The paradox was immense, though. How could an absolute monarchy support insurgents rising up against their own king? Initially, it was a matter of political realism. France wanted to use the Americans against its hereditary enemy. Underlying this conflict was a clash between two rival ethnocultural identities. France’s support was based first and foremost on this logic of realpolitik. This “ambiguity” permeates French politics. Officially, Louis XVI could not endorse a rebellion against a monarchy. Unofficially, however, every British setback served French interests.


However, reducing this policy to a simple geopolitical calculation would be incomplete. For several decades, Enlightenment ideas had been circulating in Parisian salons. Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau fueled debates on liberty, the separation of powers, and popular sovereignty. Several American leaders drew direct inspiration from these thinkers.

From the beginning, two different approaches coexisted. The king acted against Great Britain, while some of the French elite supported the Americans out of conviction. This duality is embodied by two figures. Louis XVI pursued a strategic and geopolitical objective, while the Marquis de La Fayette—who would become the most famous French figure of the American Revolution—saw the American struggle as a cause driven by the ideals of the Enlightenment.
Diplomacy in the Shadows

Before any formal alliance was established, Versailles opted for discretion. On May 2, 1776, Louis XVI authorized the Count of Vergennes to secretly send weapons, ammunition, and supplies to the insurgents via Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, who operated behind the “front company” Rodrigue Hortalez et Compagnie. Beaumarchais became an indispensable secret agent for Louis XVI. He financed the rebels as long as France refused to officially commit. Two prominent factors drove this caution. First, it was unclear whether the insurgents would declare independence or if they could withstand the British military. Second, a premature commitment by France risked leading to another financial and diplomatic catastrophe.

Two months later, on July 4, 1776, the break between the British Crown and its thirteen colonies was finally formalized with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. The young American nation changed its name from the “United Colonies” to the “United States of America.” However, the fighting did not cease. In September 1776, British troops captured New York City. For the representatives of the American colonies who had just declared independence, finding reinforcements was urgent. Eager to hasten a rapprochement with France, Congress dispatched a new commissioner to Paris: Benjamin Franklin. When he arrived in France in December 1776 to seek aid from Louis XVI, the renowned American scholar quickly became a celebrity in the capital.


Franklin charmed the French with both his inventions and his personality. He frequented salons, mastered their codes, and, in the eyes of the French, embodied the new ideals emerging from America. However, Vergennes remained true to his strategy of waiting for the right moment to transform this clandestine support into an open alliance. That moment did not come until October 1777. In Saratoga, New York, George Washington’s troops inflicted a decisive defeat on the British, forcing 6,000 English soldiers to surrender.

This military success finally convinced Versailles that the insurgents could prevail. A few months later, France signed an alliance with the United States and officially entered the war against Great Britain. This decision would profoundly change the course of the conflict.

About Richard Rousseau

Richard Rousseau, Ph.D., is an international relations expert. He was formerly a professor and head of political science departments at universities in Canada, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and the United Arab Emirates. His research interests include the former Soviet Union, international security, international political economy, and globalization. Dr. Rousseau's approximately 800 books, book chapters, academic journal and scholarly articles, conference papers, and newspaper analyses on a variety of international affairs issues have been published in numerous publications, including The Jamestown Foundation (Washington, D.C.), Global Brief, World Affairs in the 21st Century (Canada), Foreign Policy In Focus (Washington, D.C.), Open Democracy (UK), Harvard International Review, Diplomatic Courier (Washington, C.D.), Foreign Policy Journal (U.S.), Europe's World (Brussels), Political Reflection Magazine (London), Center for Security Studies (CSS, Zurich), Eurasia Review, Global Asia (South Korea), The Washington Review of Turkish and Eurasian Affairs, Journal of Turkish Weekly (Ankara), The Georgian Times (Tbilisi), among others.
View all posts by Richard Rousseau →

250 years of US independence: Why France supported the American Revolutionaries

ANALYSIS


French support for the American Revolution began well before the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. King Louis XVI saw the rebellion in North America as an opportunity to weaken his British rival and avenge past defeats. FRANCE 24 looks back at how European colonial rivalry and Enlightenment ideals forged a decisive alliance between the nascent United States and its "oldest ally".  


Issued on:  04/07/2026 - FRANCE24
By: Barbara GABEL

The 1776 Declaration of Independence, Louis XVI, and the Enlightenment all provided the basis of French support for the American insurgents. © France Médias Monde graphic studio


On July 4, 1776, 13 British colonies in North America broke with the British Crown and declared their independence in a momentous act of rebellion that would change the course of history. As the United States celebrates its 250th birthday, FRANCE 24 looks back at France’s decisive – and often overlooked – role in the American Revolution.

Behind the fight for independence lies another story: that of a long-standing rivalry between Great Britain and France, the two great European powers at the time. When the Thirteen Colonies proclaimed their independence, they were still a long way from winning the war. Across the Atlantic, France watched the brewing rebellion with increasing interest.

For the young King Louis XVI, the dispute between American colonists and the British government represented an opportunity to exact revenge on France's historic rival. Far from being a spontaneous show of support for a democratic revolution, France’s support was rooted in decades of conflict with its neighbour from across the Channel.

‘Englishmen in America’

France and Britain had been competing for control of North America, the Caribbean, the Indies and trade routes since the 17th century. The French monarchy had colonised territory spanning from the Gulf of Saint Lawrence in the north, in modern-day Canada, to the Gulf of Mexico in the south.

"France held nearly half the territory east of the Mississippi," said Steven Ekovich, professor emeritus of politics and history at the American University of Paris. “For both monarchies, America was part of a much wider global conflict between the English and the French."

The rivalry between the two powers did not prevent trade. As early as the 17th century, steady commerce developed between the British colonies of New England and the French West Indies. Timber, supplies, livestock, and construction materials all regularly crossed the Atlantic Ocean. These early economic ties between French and American colonists were well established before independence.

A break between the colonists and the mother country was unimaginable at this time. "The Americans were Englishmen in America above all, and they wished to remain so," said Ekovich. The Thirteen Colonies and their 2.5 million inhabitants thus far did not consider themselves as citizens of a single nation.

The trauma of the Seven Years’ War

The Seven Years’ War (1756 to 1763), pitting England and Prussia against France, Austria and Russia, changed everything. The global conflict fuelled by colonial rivalries ended with the Treaty of Paris, which forced France to cede several of its territories to the British: including Canada, part of Louisiana, parts of the West Indies, Senegal and most of its territory in India – except for a few trading posts such as Pondicherry and Chandernagore (now Chandannagar).

The French defeat was perceived as a national humiliation. The court in Versailles became obsessed with one idea: preventing England from becoming the dominant power. But Louis XVI, a pacifist at heart, remained cautious at first. His kingdom had emerged significantly weakened from the conflict and needed to rebuild its navy.

"France had only one objective on its mind: reclaiming its territory and undermining the English," said Émilie Mitran, a historian specialising in the United States and the author of Des Américains en France,1776–1792 (Americans in France, 1776-1796). "If Britain lost part of its empire, it would be proper payback from the French point of view following its own humiliation of 1763."

Britain was also under financial pressure after the Seven Years' War, which had cost a colossal fortune. To compensate, it imposed new taxes on its colonies – specifically on sugar, tea and stamped papers through the infamous Stamp Act, which applied to all printed documents. Since the colonists had no representatives in the British Parliament, they refused to pay and angrily chanted, "No taxation without representation.”
Supporting the rebels without encouraging a revolution

France’s newly appointed foreign minister Charles Gravier, count of Vergennes, watched from the sidelines as tensions continued to simmer between the British Empire and the Thirteen Colonies. The friction evolved into the American War of Independence in the spring of 1775, with the first clashes between insurgents and British troops in Lexington, Massachusetts.

It was a historic opportunity for Vergennes. His plan was to exploit the crisis to the fullest while holding back from entering the conflict prematurely.

For an absolute monarchy like that in France, support for insurgents revolting against their king was a striking paradox. Louis XVI could not officially condone the rebellion. Yet unofficially, every British setback served French interests.

"It was initially a matter of political realism," said Ekovich. "France wanted to use the Americans against its hereditary enemy. (...) French support was primarily driven by the logic of realpolitik."

Enlightenment ideas also guided French supporters of the Thirteen Colonies. For decades, Parisian salons were the setting for philosophers like Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau as they launched debates on liberty, the separation of powers and popular sovereignty. American leaders picked up these concepts while fighting for their independence.
Lafayette: France’s forgotten hero, America’s beloved patriot

"Two sets of logic coexisted from the beginning," said Ekovich. "The king acts against Great Britain, while a portion of the French elite supports the Americans out of conviction."

This duality was embodied by two figures: Louis XVI, who pursued a strategic objective, and the Marquis de Lafayette, a French aristocrat who later became the most famous French figure of the American War of Independence. The latter viewed the American struggle as a just cause driven by Enlightenment ideals.
Shadow diplomacy

Versailles opted for discretion before initiating any formal alliance. On May 2, 1776, Louis XVI authorised Vergennes to covertly send arms, ammunition and supplies to the insurgents through Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, who used a shell company known as Rodrigue Hortalez et Compagnie as a cover for the transactions.

"Beaumarchais became an irreplaceable secret agent for Louis XVI," said Mitran. "He made it possible to fund the rebels as long as France refused to commit officially."

France’s caution was based on several imperatives. "No one knew whether the insurgents would declare independence or if they could withstand British military might," she said. "For France to commit prematurely meant running the risk of another financial and diplomatic disaster."

The break between the British Crown and the Thirteen Colonies was finally sealed two months later with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The young nation’s name went from the "United Colonies" to the "United States of America".

Fighting between Britain and the colonists continued. British troops captured New York in September 1776. For the representatives of the American colonies who had just declared their independence, finding reinforcements became urgent.

Eager to forge a bond with France, the American Congress dispatched a new diplomat named Benjamin Franklin to Paris. His mission was to persuade France to openly support the American rebels. Soon after arriving in France in December 1776, he became a celebrity.

"Benjamin Franklin captivated the French as much with his inventions as with his personality," said Mitran. "He visited the salons, mastered their social codes and incarnated the new ideals arriving from America for the French."

Despite the successful charm offensive, Vergennes remained cautious. He continued to wait for the right moment before transforming France’s covert support into an open alliance. That moment did not arrive until October 1777, when George Washington's troops inflicted a decisive blow on the British at Saratoga, forcing 6,000 soldiers to surrender.

This military success finally convinced Versailles that the rebels could prevail. A few months later, France signed an alliance with the United States and officially entered the war against Great Britain – a decision that would profoundly alter the course of the conflict.

250 years of US independence: How France helped turn the tide of the Revolutionary War

ANALYSIS


After months of discreet support, France officially allied itself with the American revolutionaries in their war against the British Empire, a decision that would permanently alter the fate of both nations.


Issued on: 04/07/2026 - FRANCE24
By: Barbara GABEL

Lafayette, the Treaty of Paris, Benjamin Franklin and the Battle of Yorktown: the key milestones in French support for the American rebels. © Studio graphique France Médias Monde


On July 4, 1776, 13 British colonies in North America broke with the British Crown and declared their independence, in a momentous act of rebellion that would change the course of history. As the United States celebrates its 250th birthday, FRANCE 24 looks back at France’s decisive – and often overlooked – role in the American Revolution.

More than a year after the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War was still raging. On the ground, the balance of power remained precarious until the Battle of Saratoga in October 1777 in the state of New York. The American victory over the British troops proved to be a turning point.

In the eyes of Louis XVI, this success changed everything. For the past year and a half, the king had already been supporting the insurgents in secret. Weapons, ammunition and funds were being smuggled to the rebellious colonies, but Versailles was still reluctant to openly confront Great Britain. Saratoga dispelled any remaining reservations.


How US independence is being celebrated across the pond

Cover image: ENTRE NOUS © FRANCE 24
06:56

On December 17, 1777, Louis XVI officially recognised the independence of the US, making France the first country to grant diplomatic recognition to the newly formed republic.

“By recognising the American state, France legitimised the Declaration of Independence and its republican values,” said Steven Ekovich, professor emeritus of politics and history at the American University of Paris. “It helped to establish the world’s first republican state.”
The alliance strengthens in Paris

Diplomatic recognition, however, was only the first step. A few weeks later, on February 6, 1778, Benjamin Franklin and the French secretary of state for foreign affairs, the count of Vergennes, signed two historic treaties at Versailles: one commercial, the other military.

From then on, the two countries vowed not to conclude any peace with Great Britain. Consequently, the War of Independence ceased to be a mere colonial rebellion and became an international conflict pitting the greatest powers of the era against each other.

In Paris, Franklin quickly became the face of the American Revolution. Received by Louis XVI at Versailles and celebrated by Voltaire at the Academy of Sciences, he captivated the French aristocracy. But not all American representatives enjoyed the same success. While Franklin charmed, John Adams, another Founding Father, proved a disappointment.

“John Adams was a much more austere and puritanical man. He arrived at a court where luxury and the codes of the Ancien Régime reigned supreme: it was a real culture shock for him,” said Émilie Mitran, a historian specialising in the United States and the author of Des Américains en France,1776–1792 (Americans in France, 1776-1796).

Unlike Franklin, “John Adams did not speak French and showed little inclination to adopt the diplomatic customs of Versailles,” Mitran added.

Convinced that he would be of greater use elsewhere, Congress sent him to the United Provinces (now the Netherlands) in 1780 to secure an essential loan for the war.
Lafayette, ‘Hero of Two Worlds’

While diplomats were consolidating this alliance in the salons of Versailles, it gradually began to take shape on the ground. In the spring of 1778, France officially entered the war against Great Britain, committing its navy, its army and substantial financial resources. But the initial results were limited: admiral Charles Henri d’Estaing’s naval operations failed in both New York and Savannah and the partnership remained fragile.

It was ultimately a young French aristocrat who breathed new life into the alliance: Gilbert du Motier, the marquis of Lafayette, who arrived in America in June 1777 to fight alongside the revolutionaries.

Lafayette: France’s forgotten hero, America’s beloved patriot

Cover image: FRANCE IN FOCUS © FRANCE 24
12:23

“When Lafayette arrived in the US, he presented an image of the French that was completely different from the one the colonists had,” said Mitran. “The French were often seen as Catholics, as ‘Papists’. He arrived with incredible enthusiasm for defending their ideals. George Washington quickly took him under his wing and, when he returned to France, he became the leading ambassador for the American cause.”

This dual loyalty soon earned him a nickname that stuck: the “Hero of Two Worlds”.

In the spring of 1779, Lafayette returned to Versailles to persuade Louis XVI to step up his military commitment. The king agreed to send a full-scale expeditionary force to America under the command of the count of Rochambeau. Nearly 6,000 soldiers arrived in Newport, Rhode Island, during the summer of 1780. For the first time, the revolutionaries had an ally fighting by their side for the long term.

An undated portrait of the Marquis de La Fayette, painted by Matthew Harris Jouet, from the Mabel Brady Garvan Collection held at the Yale University Art Gallery in New Haven, Connecticut, in the United States. AP

The year 1781 marked a turning point in the conflict. While Lafayette was pursuing British troops in Virginia, Rochambeau persuaded George Washington to abandon his plan to attack New York and instead concentrate his forces further south, where the army of British general Charles Cornwallis was entrenched at Yorktown, Virginia. At the same time, another figure entered the scene: admiral François Joseph Paul de Grasse.

At the head of the French fleet, admiral de Grasse left the West Indies and sailed north towards Chesapeake Bay, where he took the Royal Navy by surprise. This naval victory prevented the British from resupplying or evacuating Cornwallis’s troops. Trapped between the French fleet and the armies of Washington and Rochambeau, the British found themselves surrounded.
‘France helped the Americans win’

“The Battle of Yorktown was the decisive battle that brought the war to an end,” Ekovich said. “It relied on a perfectly coordinated operation between the land forces commanded by Rochambeau and Washington and admiral de Grasse’s fleet. It was this combined manoeuvre that made all the difference.”

On October 19, 1781, after a three-week siege, Cornwallis surrendered. For many historians, it was at Yorktown that the United States was truly born. Without the French naval blockade, the British army would probably have received reinforcements. Without the thousands of soldiers sent by Louis XVI, Washington would have found it difficult to maintain a siege on such a scale.

In total, the French monarchy deployed tens of thousands of soldiers and mobilised its naval fleet to aid the revolutionary cause.

“France helped the Americans win for practical political reasons against its enemy across the Channel,” said Ekovich. “Above all, French aid enabled the United States to emerge as a fully-fledged nation with widespread diplomatic recognition.”

After the surrender at Yorktown, the outcome of the war was all but sealed. In London, the British government realised that it would now be impossible to reconquer the former colonies. Fighting continued for several more months, but peace negotiations were already under way.

A copy of the Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783, which officially brought the American War of Independence to an end, at the museum in Miami, Florida, on June 18, 2026. © Chandan Khanna, AFP

It was in Paris that the epilogue to the American Revolution was written. Adams returned to the capital in 1782 to take part, alongside Franklin and diplomat John Jay, the former president of the Continental Congress, in the negotiations that led to the Treaty of Paris. Signed by the Thirteen Colonies and British representatives on September 3, 1783, it brought an end to eight years of war. It was this treaty that definitively compelled Great Britain to recognise American independence. On the same day, France also made peace with London.

A victory that would backfire on Louis XVI

The newly established peace helped foster exchanges between the two countries and ideas now crossed the Atlantic as swiftly as diplomats. Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the Declaration of Independence, arrived in Europe in 1784, once the hostilities had ended. Initially tasked with negotiating trade agreements, he officially replaced Franklin as the American representative in France in 1785.

“A circle formed around Thomas Jefferson known as the ‘Americanists’. They were interested in the principles set out in the Declaration of Independence – the idea that all men are born free and equal in rights – which would subsequently influence the French Revolution,” said Mitran.

Victory, however, came at a considerable cost. Between 1778 and 1783, the monarchy spent over a billion French livres to fund the war, military expeditions and aid to the American revolutionaries. This colossal debt exacerbated the financial straits France had been in since the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763).

France’s territorial gains remained modest. While it regained its fishing rights in Newfoundland and several trade advantages, it definitively gave up any hope of restoring its former North American empire.

Ironically, by helping the American revolutionaries establish a new republic, Louis XVI unwittingly contributed to the weakening of his own kingdom. Ideas of liberty and popular sovereignty were now circulating more widely across the Atlantic. French officers returning from the United States, most notably Lafayette, brought back with them a unique political experience that would fuel debates in the years to come.

“There are always unforeseen events in history,” said Ekovich. “France’s aim was to weaken its British enemy. But by helping the Americans, it also helped to legitimise this new political experiment that was the Republic.”

The French Revolution broke out six years after the Treaty of Paris. By helping a republic emerge on the other side of the Atlantic, the king of France helped hasten the demise of his own monarchy.

This article has been translated from the original in French. Click here to read Part I: Why France supported the American Revolutionaries

Macron defies Israeli and US opposition to French plan to recognize Palestine at the United Nations

Issued on: 25/07/2025 - 

France intends to recognise a Palestinian state in September at the UN General Assembly, President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday in hopes of bringing peace to the region, but the plan drew angry rebukes from Israel and the United States. France24 International Affairs Editor Kethevane Gorjestani explains.

Video by: Kethevane GORJESTANI

 

Why is France recognising Palestinian statehood and will it change anything?

French President Emmanuel Macron has announced he will officially recognise Palestinian statehood before the UN General Assembly in September. While the move has been denounced by Israel and the US and welcomed by Palestinians and Arab countries, the reaction in France has been mixed.


Issued on: 25/07/2025 - RFI

The Palestinian flag is raised for the first time above a UN agency, at Unesco headquarters in Paris, on 13 December 2011. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier

By:Alison Hird

In a letter sent to Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas Thursday, Macron confirmed France's intention to press ahead with recognition and work to convince other partners to do the same.

To date, about 144 of the 193 UN member states have recognised a Palestinian state, including most of the global south as well as Russia, China and India. Only a handful of the 27 EU countries do so, mostly former Communist countries as well as Sweden and Cyprus.

Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia did so last year.

If Macron keeps his promise, France – a permanent member of the UN Security Council – will become the largest Western power and the first G7 country to recognise Palestinian statehood.

The decision is mostly symbolic, with Israel occupying the territories where the Palestinians have long sought to establish such a state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

But it makes Israel appear more isolated on the international stage over the war in Gaza, where Israel has been fighting Hamas militants since the 7 October 2023 terror attack.
Why now?

Macron's announcement on Thursday has been fuelled by the rising global outcry over starvation and devastation in Gaza.

According to the World Health Organization and a number of international aid organisations, Israeli restrictions on humanitarian aid delivery have led to mass starvation in the enclave, though Israel blames Hamas for the suffering.

Macron had been leaning towards recognising Palestine for months as part of a bid to keep the idea of a two-state solution – traditionally defended by France – alive. But he has speeded up the timetable.

"Emmanuel Macron has realised that, in reality, he cannot, unfortunately, expect French diplomacy to have a knock-on effect," says Middle East specialist Frédéric Encel. "A few months ago, he had hoped that Saudi Arabia, or at least one Arab state, would recognise Israel as a price for France's recognition of Palestine. That's obviously not the case," he told RFI.

Faced with Washington's huge influence in the region and France's diminishing influence there, Macron "decided to take the bull by the horns closer to the date of the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly at the beginning of September".

As co-host alongside Saudi Arabia of next week's UN conference in New York aimed at promoting the two-state solution, France was also under pressure to clarify its stance.

"It’s difficult for France to chair a coalition in favour of a two-state solution if France itself does not recognise one of the two states," says Hasni Abidi, director of the Geneva-based Centre for Studies and Research on the Arab and Mediterranean World (CERMAM).

Palestinians react as they ask for food from a charity kitchen, amid a hunger crisis, in Gaza City, 14 on July 2025. REUTERS - Mahmoud Issa


Israel's war and settlements a strategy to block Palestinian state: legal expert
France still counts

Palestinian authorities in both Gaza and the occupied West Bank have largely welcomed France’s decision.

"At last, France is aligning itself with international law – a system that was invented and built in Europe," says Anwar Abu Eisheh, the PA's former culture minister.

"France, like Germany and the United Kingdom, is a major global player with considerable influence," Eisheh told RFI. "And France is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council – that carries weight. This could help accelerate a genuine state-building process."

Given that Palestinians have lost faith in the West, after lots of talk about values and human rights but little evidence on the ground, "this could at least help limit the damage", he argues.

"More than 148 states have recognised a Palestinian state," Abidi notes. "France can only be part of this march of history. What is happening today in Gaza is the result of international resignation and the lack of interest in the Palestinian question and the Palestinian state. And that, in my opinion, is an important factor that led President Macron to anticipate this decision."

Jean-Paul Chagnollaud, a Middle East expert and co-author of the Atlas du Moyen-Orient, agrees. "It's a crucial move. It reasserts the principles of international law and the UN Security Council resolutions calling for a two-state solution. France's recognition of Palestine is a step in that direction."
Going it alone

Encel, however, plays down the importance of Macron’s contribution.

"It won't be a decisive contribution. Firstly, because it will change absolutely nothing on the ground. Secondly, because without the knock-on effect France will lose credibility."

Macron's announcement has indeed opened the door for other major G7 nations such as Britain, Germany and Canada to possibly jump on board.

Chagnollaud says that the announcement was initially scheduled to coincide with a conference in New York in June, which was postponed due to hostilities between Israel and Iran. "At that time, French diplomacy was actively seeking support from other players – Canada and the UK in particular. It was clear that France hoped to bring others on board, not just within Europe, but globally."

In the immediate term, Malta and Belgium have indicated they could be the next EU countries to recognise a Palestinian state but whether bigger international players will follow is far from sure.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Friday that his government would recognise a Palestinian state only as part of a negotiated peace deal, disappointing many in his Labour Party who want him to follow France.

After discussing with Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz ways to pressure Israel to end its war in Gaza, Starmer said he was focused on the "practical solutions" that he thought would make a real difference to ending the war.

Earlier on Friday, a German government spokesperson said it was not planning to recognise a Palestinian state in the short term and that its priority was to make "long-overdue progress" towards a two-state solution.

Chagnollaud says Germany "remains paralysed by the historical weight of its responsibility for the Holocaust.

And without Germany, Encel insists EU pressure on Israel will be minimal.

"As long as Germany, which is Israel's economic heavyweight and main economic partner within the European Union, does not take this kind of step, the Israeli government will not take the French position into account."

Does Macron’s pledge on Palestine signal a return to France’s ‘Arab policy’?
'Rewarding terrorism'

"Despite the announcement, many Palestinians criticise France for remaining close to Israel, so I wouldn’t call it a breath of fresh air," Encel says. "As for the Israeli government, it will make little difference – they’re a far-right coalition that couldn’t care less what France or most European states do."

Israel has reacted angrily, accusing France of "rewarding terrorism" in reference to Hamas.

In a statement, Hamas welcomed Macron's decision as a "positive step" towards justice and self-determination for the Palestinian people.

Israel argues French recognition of Palestine will encourage Hamas to hold a harder line in ceasefire negotiations but France insists the announcement – which also called for Hamas to be demilitarised – was not about rewarding Hamas but rather "proving it wrong".

"Hamas has always rejected the two-state solution. By recognising Palestine, France is proving this terrorist movement wrong. It is proving the peace camp right against the war camp," Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot wrote on X.

Israel slams French plan to recognise Palestinian state as a 'prize for terror'
Domestic differences

France is home to Europe's largest Jewish and Muslim populations so any decisions relating to Israel and the Palestinians can have an impact on the domestic front.

Announcing his decision, Macron said "the French people want peace in the Middle East".

However, a poll last month found that only 22 per cent were in favour of immediate and unconditional recognition while 47 per cent would accept recognition once Hamas had laid down its arms and released all the Israeli hostages.

Opinion among France's political class is also divided. Jean-Luc Mélénchon, figurehead of the hard-left France Unbowed (LFI) party, which has long defended Palestinian rights, described Macron's decision as a "moral victory". Socialist MP Arthur Delaporte said that faced with famine and ongoing massacres "the priority is to stop the violence," adding that recognition of Palestine, while not enough, is a step in the right direction.

The conservative Republicans party (LR) said that while it had "always been favourable" to recognising a Palestinian state, the conditions were not met.

"At present it would give victory to Hamas – a terrorist organisation – while the [Israeli] hostages have still not been freed", it wrote in a statement.

The far-right National Rally (RN) party, closely aligned to Israel's right-wing Likud, said Macron's decision was "precipitated". RN lawmaker Julien Odoul went further saying it legitimised Hamas.

"Be as violent as possible and you'll be handed a state on a silver platter. The signal this sends to the world, especially from France, is appalling."

Macron's supporters within the government back the move as both a principled and strategic step.

How France's recognition of the state of Palestine could shift Middle East dynamics