The Ghost of Gaullism: An Independent Europe

By Jackson Hufman, the former Europe Desk editor for The Pendulum and a current PhD candidate with the University of Tennessee's Department of Philosophy.

(This article was originally printed in the Spring 2026 edition of our print magazine. To see the entire magazine, click here.)

On March 2, 2026, President Emmanuel Macron stood atop a terrace at Île Longue, with a nuclear-powered submarine looming imposingly behind him, and proudly proclaimed, “to be free, one must be feared, to be feared, one must be powerful.” At the same naval facility, several other Triomphant-class nuclear submarines sit bobbing in the turquoise water, hidden away from the sprawling Breton countryside. The base was established in 1961, as a clandestine location for the production of weapons related to the newly-initiated Force de frappe (Strike Force), or Force de dissuasion (Deterrence Force), program, which sought to instate France as an independent nuclear power. As Macron’s speech ended, the observers present listened to Les Marseillaise echo across the facility; the notes lingered, as they rippled through the cavernous structure, and past the fluttering tricolore. What remained was a strong image of French nationalism. Plastered across the social media accounts of every newspaper and political institution was the picture of the French president standing before the world, announcing a departure from American political security, whispering of a new future, one of an independent Europe, whose sovereignty is secured by its own military capabilities. President Macron was not the first to elucidate this vision, its form was spoken of long ago, and the imprint of this moment, and this future, were predicted decades ago by Europe’s most divisive rebuilder: Charles de Gaulle.

In the aftermath of World War Two, France was a fledging, embarrassed nation, entwined with the fate of a dozen colonies gripping with revolutionary violence, and situated in a continent reduced to rubble and uncertainty. Paralysed by the Nazi war machine, France spent the duration of the war as a complicit and complacent hostage, emotionally distancing itself from the swastika, and rising its standard before the statehouse everyday. Heroes of the first World War retired their laurels, and marched under the swastika; the very symbol of French resilience, the lion of Verdun, General Philippe Pétain, surrendered to the invading forces, and became their asset, leading the Vichy puppet state. When the war ended, the leader of France libre (Free France), Charles de Gaulle, otherwise known as le général, rode into Paris, much to the chagrin of allied military leadership, and announced, "Paris outraged! Paris broken! Paris martyred! But Paris liberated! Liberated by itself, liberated by its people with the help of the armies of France.” For the following next two decades, de Gaulle dedicated himself to this vision, this myth—the idea of a strong and liberated France, inflamed by the spirit of sovereignty and power, through which, a standard of foreign policy was established, one which remains today. 

The tradition of Gaullist foreign policy was established with a skepticism of a united, American-led Western hegemony. De Gaulle understood the nature of the future that awaited Europe; one dominated by American capital, protected by American weapons, and allied with American interests. The United States was able to secure the second interest by establishing the North American Treaty Organization (NATO), and through which, create a collective security organization, with consolidated and entwined military approval. And in relation to the Soviet Union, and burgeoning Socialist East, secure protection during the Cold War by the promise of nuclear deterrence. Post-war Europe, a pauperized collection of sovereign states, was futile when compared to the blossoming economic and military superpowers of the United States and the Soviet Union. Never before had the world witnessed the creation of such entities, ones who singlehandedly possess the ability to determine the development and destiny of the human species. History has known empires, maps draped in European flags adorned with foreign names, but never before has the world been divided by powers of such immense influence; countries with the armaments of armageddon, feuding over control and domination. The gamble of de Gaulle and Anthony Eden, his British counterpart, was whether or not the new liberal order would be a co-operative, unified enterprise, or an appendage of the American empire. The crisis of the Suez Canal resulted in a definite and conclusive answer: Europe is beholden to American interests. The colonial protections of the previous century had neither the legitimacy, nor support, of the reigning regime. Nations whose vast territories rested upon the political capital of the newly knighted American police state were troubled by the prospect of a changing order.

Charles de Gaulle saw himself in the tradition of great French statesmen, standing amongst figures like Cardinals Richelieu, de Fleury, Napoléon, and Talleyrand, and saw the clouds part and reveal his divine duty: retain French grandeur. From the ‘le Roi Soleil’ (sun king) Louis XIV, to the harbinger of nationalist upheaval, Napoléon, the rushing currents of French politics have carved the stone of European history, and rendered a statue-esque image of a strong state. It is a symbolic and cultural task, to maintain the appearance of power and sovereignty, amidst a rapidly changing world, wherein century-old Empires dissolve and assume the position of impotent satellite states. Beyond the pronouncements of French capacity and ability, were the technical solutions, the establishment of a self-sufficient energy industry, in tandem with the creation of a nuclear arms program.  Vessels to launch and carry the missiles were created soon thereafter, with France having the pleasure of boasting the fact that they are the only other country, besides the United States, to have a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle. With a structure and environment conducive to the execution of an independent, sovereign and popular will, the government of France withdrew from the NATO central command in 1966, inhibiting the ability of the Americans to operate active military bases and personnel on French soil. This, the idea of a collective and secure free Europe, was derived from the fear regarding an ‘American Europe,’ under the patronage of an ‘ally’ whose primary military and economic concerns might threaten the peace and prosperity of the continent. 

The aspects of nuclear deterrence and a robust, and capable, military was only part of the aspiration of grandeur. The other, perhaps more significant, was the realization of a “confederacy of nations,” where Europe operates as a third superpower, balancing the bifurcated global structure of the Cold War. This was done after de Gaulle’s time, but supported by many French politicians and intellectuals (figures such as the ‘Father of the Euro’ Jacques Delors, and Jean Monnet), and eventually realized as the European Union (EU). Specifically, de Gaulle envisioned a confederation of states, wherein the autonomy of each respective participant was retained by a political organization that acted as a mediator of common interests, with nations reserving their foreign and domestic interests through confined regional action. De Gaulle, with various other European powers, developed and devised the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, which operated as a foundation for the eventual creation of the EU proper. With all of this, a series of dreams, de Gaulle saw two futures of Europe; one where a loose collective of geographically bound American vassal states bumble around helplessly beneath the shield of Uncle Sam, and another, where a united and strong Europe writes and directs its own destiny, with the military, economic, and cultural foundation to build upon. The gravity of these predictions were derived from an intense fear, the consternation of change, of a future unfolding before the eyes of a distraught, embarrassed population, who felt as though they might not be the ones creating the new world for them to inhabit. The first president of Algeria (a French colony liberated by a violent conflict), Ahmed Ben Bella, said of de Gaulle that he “saw further” than most politicians, and that he had a “universal dimension that is too often lacking in current leaders.”

The shape that de Gaulle saw dimly in the smoke of war was, to him, a matter of practical and political necessity. And President Emmanuel Macron, of the centre-right party Renaissance, has maintained the Gaullist vision. Much of French politics succeeding de Gaulle has preserved the nucleus of the Gaullist plan; by bolstering the European Union through the creation of a single currency, by announcing neutrality during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and now, with the recognition of Palestine as a state, and the intention of expanding the French nuclear arsenal. Conversely, the United States led, and orchestrated, the invasion of Iraq, and has maintained fervent support of the Israeli state, with recent political action being inspired by this geostrategic partnership. Macron is a divisive leader domestically, and has encountered turbulence from a variety of parties, both left and right, which have subjected the nation to upheavals (Mouvement des gilets jaunes or Yellow Vest Movement), strikes, and riots. But he has remained firm on the principles of a Europe protected continentally by collective security guarantees, a prospered, connected market, and independent nuclear deterrence. As the United States separates itself from the elusive mirage of world order, by means of the United Nations, the fate of Europe is becoming uncertain and vague. The fears presented by de Gaulle now loom like clouds before a dark storm, but France, through Macron, have maintained their convictions.

The political environment of today mirrors the uncertainty which de Gaulle faced as President. The limitations of power are being arranged through violent conflicts unfolding throughout the world, the continent is struggling to support disinterested and discontent constituents, and sundry nuclear-powered states are contending on the international stage. Macron is operating on the same assumptions as his spiritual predecessor de Gaulle, and is intent on sustaining the dream of grandeur first actualized during that speech in Paris so long ago. By expanding the nuclear arsenal, Macron announced the continual guarantee of French sovereignty, and by insisting on the collective ability of the European Union to trade, negotiate, and sanction, he has further bolstered the international reputation of the continent. And much like de Gaulle, Macron has sought the support of other world powers when the United States is offering contentious trade perimeters, such as when he visited China in late 2025 to discuss potential investment. Similar to the acts of ‘le général’ during World War Two, when he visited Joseph Stalin to pressure the Western half of the allies into acquiescing to his demands. Both executives were willing to betray the established dichotomy of East-West politics by conversing with the opposition of the United States, to remind the world of their independence, that they are bounded by neither sphere of influence. The principle present is that France, and Europe as a whole, is not an arm of American control, but rather, an unfettered body, capable of discerning judgement itself. 

The ghost of de Gaulle may save Europe. It whispers in the ear of Macron a haunting story of uncertainty and ambition, of rivaling superpowers conducting conflicts with Europe as pawns. As the bald eagle encroaches upon the middle east with talons extended, Europe must decide if it will join the American crusade. Much of the continent is impotent, with neither the ability nor capacity to resist the will of President Donald Trump. But France, being blessed with the forethought of a visionary, has developed the necessary infrastructure to support itself, militarily and economically. However, the dreams of de Gaulle have not yet been realized, the European Union is a weak institution, divided across the states as populist movements surge. The actions of Macron present a promising continuation of Gaullist tradition, and with time, the shadow of his legacy may soon creep across the continent, securing the sovereignty of a people left insignificant in the periphery of American foreign policy.