Moral leadership

To a student of history growing up in Pakistan, France's outsized role on the world stage often felt like a historical enigma. Its permanent seat on the UN Security Council seemed a relic of post-war politics, not modern reality. The Statue of Liberty raised another paradox: how could America's most potent symbol of identity be a foreign gift? With time, I learnt that the answer to both questions is the same.

France's enduring power is not just political; it is philosophical. Its authority comes not from the size of its empire or economy, but from its role as the crucible of modern republicanism and universal human rights. Thinkers like Montesquieu and Rousseau did not just write for France; they wrote for the world. The Statue of Liberty is not merely a gift; it is America's acknowledgement of this intellectual debt. It is this legacy of moral and philosophical leadership that gives France the unique standing to act, as it recently has in championing a renewed path for Palestinian statehood.

In a world increasingly defined by attempts to ignite a new cold war and diplomatic paralysis, France's recent leadership on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a welcome echo of its historic role. The resolution to admit the State of Palestine as a full UN member was not just drafted but decisively brought to the Security Council floor. When the votes were cast, the outcome was as telling as it was predictable: an overwhelming majority of nations voted in favour, only to be thwarted by a single veto from the United States. In that moment, France's "yes" was not just a diplomatic formality; it was an act of political courage. It chose to stand with the global consensus and international law, even when it meant publicly breaking with its most powerful ally.

The resolution may have failed on paper, but it succeeded in isolating an untenable position and reaffirming the two-state solution as the only just path forward. This is the France the world needs: a nation willing to use its political capital not just to build consensus, but to hold firm to principles, even in the face of a veto. It championed a solution based on rights, reminding us that a moral victory can be as powerful as a political one. And France did not act alone. In co-chairing the July conference with Saudi Arabia, Paris showed that alliances for justice can be built across cultural and political divides. It was a partnership that lent legitimacy, broadened the coalition, and reminded the world that moral clarity is not the preserve of any single civilisation.

These efforts did not stop with July. In September, during the UN General Assembly, France went further. It formally recognised the State of Palestine, joining a growing chorus of European states. It pushed for an international force to stabilise Gaza, a bold step designed to create space for peace rather than simply call for it. And as global leaders gathered in New York, it was France again that held the line on principles, even as others hedged. This is the leadership of conviction, not convenience.

Such clarity is rare. It is also exactly what the world now needs on its most chaotic new frontier: the digital wild west of cryptocurrency. And it needs to show similar moral leadership in establishing an international framework for the chaotic digital realms of crypto and AI. The eighteen-month-long progress on the two-state solution needed patience, persistence and determination in the presence of aggressive disruptors. That is what we need now for technology.

I respect the innovation of blockchain, but its public face has been hijacked by radical billionaires, flying the libertarian flag, deeply hostile to the very idea of a social contract. The crypto space has morphed into a playground for billionaires to park wealth beyond the reach of states and a vehicle for "pump and dump" schemes. The human cost of this unregulated casino is immense, measured in the life savings of ordinary people who are lured by the promise of decentralisation only to become exit liquidity for anonymous insiders.

The current international framework is laughably inadequate, a patchwork of national rules that allows fraud and illicit finance to migrate to the most permissive jurisdiction. We need a global framework that mandates transparency for stablecoin reserves and establishes clear lines of cross-border enforcement. Who better to lead this charge than France? This does not undercut the leadership of America and China. They are simply too close to the problem. France, with its tradition of dirigisme and its role in shaping Europe's more citizen-centric approach, can champion a third way. It has the ideological DNA to argue that consumer protection and market stability are not obstacles to innovation but prerequisites for it.

If crypto is the Wild West, Artificial Intelligence is an undiscovered continent. Its potential for good is matched only by its capacity for chaos. We are no longer talking in abstractions. AI-powered deepfakes threaten the very integrity of elections. Autonomous weapons could make life-or-death decisions on the battlefield without human intervention. The potential for pervasive social scoring systems, already a reality in some nations, threatens the very notion of personal freedom.

Here, the stakes are existential. The debate cannot be left to tech barons who preach disruption or to political interests who see AI as a tool of control. We urgently need a global, human-centric model for AI governance, one built on the Enlightenment values that France first championed. This means binding international treaties on the use of AI in warfare, much like the conventions on chemical and biological weapons. It requires consensus that foundational AI models must be audited for safety and that citizens have a right to know when they are interacting with an AI rather than a human. Europe's AI Act, in which France played a pivotal role, is a good start. But a regional framework will not suffice.

The thread that connects a decades-old conflict in the Middle East to the lawless frontiers of crypto and AI is the urgent need for a rules-based, human-centric order. Before companies start replacing labour with AI, there is a need for moral leadership that can stand its ground like Macron did despite Netanyahu's attacks and forge a consensus on a common minimum programme. By taking up the challenge of regulating these new technologies, France would not just be solving a modern problem; it would be reaffirming the very identity that gives it its unique and vital voice in the world.

The lesson is simple: France matters not because it is big, but because it dares to be principled. It is this moral leadership, tested in the Security Council, voiced at the General Assembly and needed in the digital age, that the world cannot afford to lose. It will be a duty of the democratic and well-meaning powers to ensure that France and its leadership stay protected while they undertake this Herculean task.