But some experts believe Mr Chirac has wider ambitions. By playing America's chief protagonist, he can win favour and fill a perceived diplomatic void.

The strategy was on show last week when Mr Chirac mended ties with former colony Algeria. He was the first French leader to visit since independence in 1962 ended a bloody eight-year war.

He took offence to comments by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that France was part of 'old Europe', a stuck-in-the-mud cousin to the progressive-thinking - and pro-American - former Soviet bloc countries to the east.

Former US ambassador to the UN, Richard Holbrooke, is in no doubt where France stands. In a speech in Hong Kong, he said France wanted a rivalry with the US 'for influence in the world'.

Mr Holbrooke's view is shared by Jacques Beltran, a research fellow in strategic studies at the French Institute of International Relations, also known as IFRI, in Paris. Mr Chirac was not being confrontational and merely following a well-defined French position.

For one, France's position towards Iraq was the same during the 1991 Gulf War. This was despite a common perception that since last year's presidential election when the right-wing Mr Chirac was returned with a landslide, the country's foreign policy had changed.

'There's a constant in France's policy towards Iraq, basically on setting the goal on disarmament as a major priority,' Dr Beltran said. 'It relies on the UN Security Council to make a decision and avoid as much as possible any collateral damage on the Iraqi population.'

Hosting Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe at a summit of African leaders in Paris this month - despite European Union-imposed economic sanctions and travel restrictions against the dictatorial leader - was similarly a continuation of stated policy.

'The one constant in France's foreign policy is people don't believe or trust too much containment policies,' Dr Beltran said. 'The French government would rather rely on the engagement policy to make things change.'

The only split in Europe was that some countries termed as 'old' by Mr Rumsfeld were unwilling to follow America on every issue as those in the 'new' part of the continent were.

'They have different perceptions of the threat, different interests and they now believe it is their role to say it loud,' he said. 'There are other countries within and outside the EU that basically believe in the case of Iraq that war is inevitable so it's not worth risking relations with Washington.'

French-born analyst Simon Serfaty, who heads the Europe programme at the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, disagreed that French policy was unchanged. European perception of America's overwhelming dominance was a critical difference between now and the last Gulf War and such assumptions could not be made.

Increasing numbers of Europeans were telling the US: 'If we follow you with Iraq, what will come next? Where else will we have to follow you? You're presenting us with a fait accompli, but you're not telling us what lies at the end of the journey.'

Dr Serfaty said that unlike in 1991, there was distrust of President George W. Bush's leadership and a perception he was not equipped to deal with such a conflict. Lastly, there were fears over the cultural and economic spillovers of war.

'For possibly the first time ever, the French president can claim to be speaking on behalf of the Europeans,' he said. 'Not of Europe, as it's too anarchical, but on behalf of Europeans as opposed to the heads of state in governments who are not followed by their own domestic public.'