Afghanistan – Interview given by M. Gérard Errera, French Ambassador, to Channel 4, 13.09.06

Wednesday, 13 September 2006

John Snow – When it comes to NATO deployment, only two members are seen as able to make rapid and considerable additions to the force in Afghanistan: Britain and America. Then there is France. Some are arguing that France with only 1,000 men on the ground might be in a better position to do more. Joining us now the French ambassador to the UK, Gérard Errera. Ambassador, you are not a member of main NATO but you have a very close relationship with NATO. Would France do more?

Gérard Errera – We are a full member of the Atlantic Alliance. To give you an example we are at present commanding the NATO force in Kabul; last year we commanded the ISAF force of NATO in the whole of Afghanistan.

So, to answer your question, from day one we have been fully engaged in the whole spectrum of military operations in Afghanistan: with special operations forces, alongside the Americans; in the NATO force that we are commanding in the whole area of Kabul which is increasingly dangerous and demanding; in air support; maritime support; and, this is also very important, the training of the officers of the Afghan army.

JS – That is a fair point but how does France see the situation? Does France accept that actually more people are going to be needed?

GE – We have been doing that and we have, again recently, increased our commitment in spite of the very large-scale commitment around the world of our troops in the Balkans, in Côte d’Ivoire, and as you have seen recently in Lebanon; all areas, all kinds of missions, Africa, Middle East, Balkans, which are crucial for our security.

JS – You have about the same deployment as we have.

GE – We have the same deployment [as UK] worldwide in operational forces.

JS – May we return to the same question: do you accept the fact that we need more forces there? Will France be part of it?

GE – I heard the American ambassador to NATO saying that America is doing a lot, we are also doing a lot. The reason why – from day one since 9/11 – we have been fully committed is simple: the commitment to fight a regime that was harbouring terrorist groups which had attacked an ally.

JS – We seem to be at a point at which that great endeavour may be thrown away if something more is not done there.

GE – I think that this commitment is part of the solidarity contract which is at the heart of NATO: an attack on an ally is an attack on all the others, and we have to stick to that. I sometimes hear "NATO is asking", no, NATO is not asking!; NATO is us, NATO is all of us and I think that we are doing our full share.

JS – But as NATO says we have to eliminate the Taliban and to do that, so far we need at least another 2,500 troops. Where are they going to come from?

GE – This is right now being discussed among the military people in NATO. This will be an on-going process. I think that, in addition to the point that I have just made, it is important to bring security, it is important to have military action against terrorism and to fight the Taliban. There is also one very important point which is what we owe to the Afghan people: hope for their future, meaning reconstruction, better health, better education, better hospitals and, if I may say, more than everything the fight against drug production which is not only linked to the Taliban, but also concerns our own security, and the security of our children.

JS – Ambassador, thank you for coming in.

GE – Thank you./.