France sees a world turned upside down

Its great and good felt that M. de Villepin had put their country back on the global diplomatic map

Which European leader could – nay, should – be described in these words: isolated, arrogant and out of touch with the right-thinking national and international consensus? Here and now, in Britain in mid-February 2003, the answer is so self-evident that to pose the question at all seems ill-informed. The object of our scorn is France's Gallic cockerel of a President, Jacques Chirac, who is threatening to use his country's UN Security Council veto to fend off a war on Iraq.

Well, my frog-bashing fellow countrymen (and your American cheerleaders), hotfoot from Paris and points south, I come with sad tidings. If you lived on the other side of the Channel and watched their television, read their newspapers and frequented their cafés, the question would seem just as bewilderingly superfluous as it does in Britain, but the answer would be quite different.

From the French perspective, it is not Chirac who is isolated, arrogant and out of step with the mainstream, but Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister – and, by implication, the US administration, whose misguided cause he is seen as championing. And if we are talking "leadership", as Mr Blair is wont to do, then it is not British diplomacy that is winning the day, but that of Talleyrand's heirs.

Rarely can there have been two more divergent presentations of the same event than those of Britain and France after Monday evening's emergency EU summit.

The prevailing British view was that the balance of opinion had tipped, if only slightly, in Mr Blair's favour. UN weapons inspections would not be allowed to become permanent. Military action (ie war) is still a real option. The French view of the same meeting was that the EU had rallied around France's call to give the inspectors more time and delay any declaration of war, UN-mandated or not.

The two views no doubt reflected the best gloss that the official spokesmen of each side could put on what was by any standards a minimally satisfactory outcome. The 15 European states had managed, just, to paper over the damaging split identified by Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, between the unreconstructed "old" and the enlightened "new" – a division for which damning evidence was provided in an open letter of support for the US signed by five full EU members, including Britain, Italy and Spain, and three of the approved new members, including Poland.

What cannot be contested, however, is that last Friday's UN Security Council meeting, at which Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, gave his latest report on Iraqi compliance, "old Europe", represented by France, strutted back with a vengeance. It is too early to say that this meeting was the point at which the tide of international diplomacy turned against war – and by extension against the US post-Cold War dominance. But if there is no war, that is how it will be seen with hindsight. That is already how it is being seen in France.

The Security Council meeting provided France's stylish, if sometimes maladroit, foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, with his finest hour to date. As reported in France, and believed – with considerable pride – by the French, this speech stopped the US and British juggernaut in its tracks, caused the two pro-war foreign ministers (Colin Powell and Jack Straw) to re-write their speeches and delayed the military option for a few weeks, if not for good.

If the global impact of M. de Villepin's address to the Council has been exaggerated, its significance for France has not. That one speech, characterised in France as "deeply moral", "incisive" and – perhaps the highest praise of all – "most elegant", made France feel good about itself in a way it has not for a very long time. France's great and good felt M. de Villepin had put their country back on the global diplomatic map. The many who felt their country had been tainted by the surge of the far right in the first round of last year's presidential elections expressed relief that France was now taking the high moral ground, restoring national honour and setting a tone for a united European foreign policy that would be led by the "old" continent's historical awareness of the costs of war and its appreciation of "civilised" values.

As seen from Paris, French eloquence and logic had persuaded the leaders of Italy and Spain to dilute their support for war. France hailed the mass demonstrations in European capitals, especially London – "all the more remarkable because the British are not known for taking to the streets" – as further evidence of just how enlightened French policy was.

It would be wrong not to divine a large element of self-interest in the French government's promotion of its restraining role on war with Iraq. French troops are currently trying to stem a post-colonial civil war in Ivory Coast – a largely hopeless effort which partly explains the desire of Paris to have a full turn-out for its Africa summit today.

At home, unemployment is rising; the economy seems not to be responding to a slew of measures. The fears of crime and insecurity that boosted support for the National Front have not been averted. At such a time, a highly visible, quintessentially French, diplomatic profile is just what the psychologist ordered to brighten up the national mood.

m.dejevsky@independent.co.uk