"France and Britain in Europe and in the world: let’s seize the opportunities"
(LSE, 29 November 2007)
Thank you very much, Mrs Worthington for your kind words.
Dear friends,
As always, it is a great honour to be here and to address this prestigious audience at the London School of Economics.
My lecture at the LSE, three years ago, was : "Britain and France, our place in Europe and the world". Today it is "France and Britain in Europe and in the world : let’s seize the opportunities". I am very happy to have made such a difference even before starting my lecture.
I would like in particular to thank the Franco-British Council, who helped organise this event, but also more generally for its tireless work to foster a better understanding between France and Britain. I would like to pay tribute to the Chair of its British section, Baroness Quinn and the former Chair, Lord Radice. I would also like to express my immense gratitude to Maurice Fraser, now Vice Chair of the British section.
Formally, this talk is meant to close a lecture series on France which took place throughout the spring, a critical moment during the French electoral campaign, which captivated also many people in Britain.
These lectures provided insight on the close partner that France will always be for Britain. I would like to thank the LSE and Sciences Po, and in particular Christian Lequesne, for organising them.
This conference, whose date was agreed a long time ago, is also a special moment for me because, as you may know, this is literally my last evening in London as French Ambassador before becoming Secrétaire Général du Quai d’Orsay, in English PUS. And for that, I would not want to be anywhere else than in this prestigious and friendly institution.
This has been a very exciting time. When I arrived here, two situations had reached crisis point. Two very simple matters: Sangatte and the French embargo on British beef.
A few weeks later, both were resolved. I would like to think it was entirely thanks to me but truth compels me to recognize that the Ministers of the time, in particular Nicolas Sarkozy then Home Secretary together with David Blunkett, also had something to do with it.
After that, I was slightly worried that I would have nothing more to do. Then as you may remember a few things happened in Brussels and then in Baghdad. I understood that I would be kept rather busy.
As I am about to leave, I would like to look back on these past fantastic and exciting years. And instead of giving a dialectical lecture with three parts, three sub parts, as the French love to do so much, I would like to share with you a few memories of these past few years in London.
In so doing, I would like first to dwell on the mystery of the Franco-British relationship and then to explore the potential of this relationship in Europe and in the world.
I.First the mystery of the Franco-British relationship.
France and Britain have a unique relationship as demonstrated by the celebration of the hundredth anniversary of the Entente cordiale Treaty in 2004.
When it comes to France or Britain, and even more to France and Britain together, one cannot disentangle the past and the present, the rivalry and the admiration, tradition and modernity. We should be proud of that, not denigrate it. In a recent book, titled “That Sweet Enemy”, Robert and Isabelle Tombs described precisely this strange and unique aspect of our relationship.
This delicate balance is what makes our bilateral relationship so volatile. We are always tempted to press our views on the other, to confront absolutely antagonistic opinions and patterns of action. This is how we add up our flaws and enter into sterile debates. Too often, especially within the European Union, the temptation is to go for the simplistic Franco-British opposition. Then we have cheap, amusing for some, not necessarily for anybody else point scoring exercises. The visceral hostility here to the common agricultural policy and the tenacious defence of the British rebate have offered countless occasions for such exciting and useless exercises.
But when we respect our unique blend of differences and similarities, we can really have the best of both worlds : the Eurostar’s high speed link all the way to St Pancras, is one good example. It also put an end to the ignominy of forcing the French to arrive in London or to depart from London from a place called Waterloo!
So the question is : how to put to work for the best our very unique (I wouldn’t dare call it special !) relationship.
One important lesson in that regard is to acknowledge that there is no single model.
Different countries have different societies and have historically made different choices. This is clearly the case for France and Britain. We should aknowledge that, respect that, because these choices are often the result of our culture, our heritage, our institutions, our history. For that reason, there cannot be one single system, one single model.
Of course, this doesn’t mean lessons shouldn’t be learned. When Nicolas Sarkozy campaigned in London, to stress his ideas for labour market reforms, he was saying just that. But if I stress this point, it is to avoid misunderstandings about the French reforms now under way. What is happening is not an attempt to replace “the French model” by “the British model” but to make the best of what works well and to fix what doesn’t.
Indeed, some choices that have been made in France are still very relevant, in infrastructure, energy security, good public services. And where things are less successful, such as the labour market, the financing of the welfare state or the tax system, lessons have to be drawn from wherever things work better, Britain, Northern Europe or elsewhere. The goal is a revived French approach. President Sarkozy has a clear mandate on a wide-ranging programme. Things are now well on track.
Let me make that point again in an area which used to be very difficult between us: the debate over integration and national cohesion.
I remember the London bombings of 7 July. I was at Gleneagles, for the G8 Summit. Tony Blair was kind enough to allow me to fly home to London with him in his plane. I then reached the Embassy, where a crisis centre had been set up. Our initial task was to take the calls of hundreds of relatives of French people living in London.
In the longer term, the realisation that the bombers were of British nationality came as a shock and raised a fundamental debate here about integration. It is a very important debate in Britain but also in France, although the nature of the difficulties is different in the two countries. Fundamentally, the conciliation between societies that are more and more diverse and the need to ensure national unity is one of the common challenges that our two countries face.
In previous years, this issue had constituted a typical example of our innate tendency to fall back on sterile and prejudiced point scoring, a useless confrontation between a Republican “model” and a multicultural “model”. The sometimes excessive reactions here over our decision on the prohibition of conspicuous religious symbols in State schools in 2003, a measure which in the end re-established order without causing any offence, illustrates this point very topically.
Happily, in 2005, we found a way to seize this opportunity and get something done. In that regard, I would like to pay a special tribute to Trevor Phillips, then Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, today Chair of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. We met then and several times afterwards and he proved to be an invaluable interlocutor, with whom it was possible to build a much more fruitful discussion: seminars, speeches, meetings between leading figures.
All these allowed us to set aside ideology and to develop a better understanding of what the issue really is, how each of our approaches succeed and fail, how they could be improved and, where possible, how to do things jointly.
This is how the Franco-British relationship should always work.
II.Let me now explore how to make it work for the best in Europe and in the world.
My conviction is that France and Britain have a common destiny and that this destiny is a European one. It is as European nations that our two countries can work best in Europe, for Europe, and in the wider world.
I remember that, when I arrived, there was an exciting discussion on Europe going on in London. A few years earlier, Britain and France had launched together, at the Saint Malo Summit, the policy of European defence. Britain had also just joined the social chapter. And the debate about Britain joining the Euro was still quite lively.
After this, the European Union as a project and as an ideal went through a rough patch here but also elsewhere in Europe. The deep divisions between governments (but not public opinions) over the Iraq war, then the rejection of the European Constitution in France and the Netherlands, led to a stalemate.
Today, we are out of the doldrums. We have solved the question of European institutions with the Reform Treaty. We can move on.
There are big items on the agenda now in Europe: climate change, energy, migration, putting in place a genuine policy towards countries such as China, Russia and India, and also European defence.
I am struck how, over the past 5 years, although Eurostar has made the trip between London and Brussels or Paris, Europe has become more distant here. A very hostile discourse about cooperation in Europe, quite a strange mixture of myth and misrepresentations, has unfortunately become more vocal and less challenged. I am merely stating a fact.
It is not for me but only for Britons to decide if their national interest lies in close partnership with Britain’s neighbours through this extraordinary endeavour which is the European Union, in a Europe at last reunified, or if it lies elsewhere. But let’s be clear: things are starting again in the European Union. The time has come to launch new initiatives for the good of our countries and of our citizens. It would be unfortunate if Britain did not seize this opportunity to play its full role.
Many have pointed out here that one of the main tasks for the European Union now is to prepare for the challenges of globalisation.
I remember in that regard that for several months, European member States were engaged in a hard negotiation about a future research project called ITER. ITER is a perfect example about the role of the European Union in the world and about its possible contribution to globalisation. How to meet an increasing demand for energy is I believe one of the most important challenges. One promising response to that challenge could be nuclear fusion, if the technique can be mastered. The challenge is daunting: it is to recreate the sort of processes that are going on inside the sun, but this costs an incredible amount of money. Nobody can do it alone, not the US, not Japan, not Russia, not the European Union, let alone France or Britain. So we need to pull forces and it is because the European Union was united that it has been able to take leadership of this project.
The reason I stress this example is that, during all those months of negotiations to decide where ITER would be, what it would be exactly and more importantly how much each would have to pay, decision making inside the European Union was not easy. It was Franco-British leadership which made it possible. France and Britain combining their forces, to prepare for the future of Europe. This is what should be our aim.
Therefore, when I hear that Europe should abandon its former approach of so-called “inward-looking” integration to develop a new approach of outward-looking opening up, I’m not sure one should oppose the two ideas. I’m in fact convinced that the two aspects are complementary. It is because the European Union is a leader in its internal environmental policy that it has become a leader in international environmental negotiations. It is through its common internal standards that it expresses global leadership.
In short, it is because it has common policies and not merely because it is open to trade, that the European Union can establish itself as a world leader and therefore better defend our interests.
Defending these interests also means having the means and the will to meet our international responsibilities.
I remember, before I came here as Ambassador, the bilateral France-Britain Summit organised in Saint Malo in 1998, which I think is the happiest memory of my entire career as a diplomat. We, French and British diplomats, spent hours negotiating a text beforehand and the night before, so that our leaders could sign a declaration and launch co-operation with huge potential and, furthermore, which was for the good of all Europeans. Indeed, a few months later, the agreement reached in Saint Malo was transformed into the conclusions of a European Summit and endorsed by everyone in the European Union.
The European Union, when you think about it, is the only international entity able to rely on the entire spectrum of instruments to pursue its objectives: political dialogue, trade, development (50% of all foreign aid in the world comes from the European Union), the example and the attraction provided by its values and their means of implementation. What was needed was a capacity to define our interests in the world and the means to defend them effectively. This is why European defence matters and why it was important to have that breakthrough in Saint Malo.
In that respect, France and Britain have a crucial role to play. Together, we represent 50% of all European defence spending and two thirds of all European defence related research. European defence, which has never been about the creation of a European army, along with the necessary strengthening of the Atlantic alliance, is therefore not some kind of a luxury which we may consider, eventually, if the conditions somehow become optimal in the future.
It is vital to make progress now if we want to give more credibility to our effort to pursue our foreign policy goals and to promote our values in the world. For that, we need a sense of urgency. We need a greater commitment to support European actions than we have seen lately, for example in the field of armament. We need the necessary capabilities. These are important advances which we should be able to make together.
And what about France and Britain in the world ?
The common asumption is that we disagree on nearly everything. Nothing could be more remote from realities.
on all the big issues, crisis, conflicts in the world, we share the same analysis and very close positions : Middle East, Afghanistan, Balkans (soon we will have to manage Kosovo), Africa, Darfur. On all this, where are our differences?
on all the big global challenges, wether strategic or moral, we agree and we act together :
i.terrorism, where our cooperation has become extremely close over the years,
ii.proliferation : look at our policy over Iran. Together with Germany, France and Britain have taken the lead on this most difficult international issue. We have defined a policy, convinced the US, then India and China, then the rest of the international community to share this policy. It is a good example of where our countries have made a difference.
iii.aid to development,
iv.climate change : look at the Gleneagles Summit of 2005, where our two countries were fighting together to force others to make some progress on this question.
v.energy : look at the Hampton Court Summit of 2005, where again, together, we put the principle of a common energy policy on top of the agenda.
On all these issues, the question is therefore not to reconcile different analysis or positions or ambitions. It is to find the way to get our act together and to create international momentum, especially in the United Nations Security Council.
But, you will say, what about Iraq ? There is no question that our governments, though not our public opinions, were divided over this a few years ago. Today, the question is to address the consequences of that war, to address the issue of the stability and democracy in Iraq. The recent trip of French Minister Bernard Kouchner in the country shows that we want to contribute to a political solution, not stand aside.
And, you will say, what about the United States ? The recent visit of Nicolas Sarkozy shows that we, like Britain, are an old ally of the United States (in fact, even older : we, unlike most of the other big European powers, UK included, have never been at war with the US!). We need to manage our strong relationship based on shared values and the need to face common challenges together. We can do that while maintaining our positions, whether to agree or to disagree. I was among the few who thought that after the atrocity of 9/11 a new beginning was possible in the relationship between Europe and the US, so that we could tackle together not only the fight against the Taliban, but also all the immense challenges in the world. What, sadly, wasn’t possible then might be possible now.
***
In my first speech to the LSE, I quoted Julian Barnes saying: “if you were God and you were trying to create a nation which would most get up the British nostrils, it would probably be the French”. And vice-versa, may I add.
May be it’s now time to say : enough of that! How long will we continue to indulge in these games which have made us miss so many opportunities to work together and to really understand and respect each other ? I’m not sure we can afford it anymore.
What I have told you is not the lecture of a departing French Ambassador. It is what I believe deeply, what I have been convinced of for a long time, and those convictions have been reinforced during my five years in London. And these strong convictions are the same that I will try to implement in my new fonctions in Paris. I think I owe that not only to my government but also to the deep friendship I have for your country.
Thank you very much.