Interview with BBC radio 4 "Today" programme, 25.11.2003

Q. - And Gérard Errera, the French Ambassador, is with us in the studio. Ambassador, good morning!

THE AMBASSADOR - Good morning!

Q. - A fudge, because the real issues weren’t discussed. What’s your reading of the summit?

THE AMBASSADOR - No, the reading of the summit is quite different, I’m afraid, from what we have just heard. The first thing that President Chirac said was to convey to Prime Minister Blair the considerable emotion and solidarity expressed by the French people after the absolute horror of the barbaric attacks against British citizens in Istanbul. That will only reinforce our joint commitment to fight terrorism. The second thing that the President said is what we need is trust. I think that trust was the key word of this summit. Why? Because we have to have a strong commitment, on both sides, to act together in Europe and in the world: in Europe, to make sure that the enlarged Europe is able to work efficiently, and this is what the Constitution is about...

Q. - Well, the point here is that the British Government is sending out signals - Mr Ancram sees them as smoke signals, or red herrings, but nonetheless they‘re sending out signals for whatever reason - that they are concerned about the tax, defence, foreign policy provisions of the Constitution, and that it may be that the whole thing falls on those questions. Now, if that were to happen, if Britain blocked the Constitution, what would the French view be?

THE AMBASSADOR - I don’t think that’s the case. I think that we are not talking about vetoes here. We are talking about how to make Europe work. Europe can’t work with 25 when it is enlarged, the way it worked with 6, or 9, or 15.

Q. - In other words, the French view is there must be a new Constitution to cope with the...

THE AMBASSADOR - Well, it is not only the French view. It is everybody’s view because everybody participated in the Convention...

Q. - ...Giscard’s Convention ...

THE AMBASSADOR - Giscard’s Convention. 105 people coming from all backgrounds, government, parliament. They came out with a proposal. This proposal was about new institutions for an enlarged Europe, a strong and stable presidency, an efficient Commission, and a Parliament which plays its role.

Q. - So the President, President Chirac, having talked to Mr Blair, believes that it is still the commitment of the British government to get a deal. In other words, the British Government doesn’t want to have to stop at the red lines so-called.

THE AMBASSADOR - I think that’s what was said very clearly yesterday, including in the communiqué that the President and the Prime Minister issued, that we will work closely together in order to ensure the success of the Intergovernmental Conference on the Constitution. This is our commitment.

Q. - And do you believe, from a French point of view, that the national control over taxation, defence and foreign policy remains in a form that a British Government could accept, and indeed sell to the British people, not in a referendum because they don’t want one, but I mean in terms of an election?

THE AMBASSADOR - Well, it’s up to every government to be responsive to its interests and to be responsive to its public opinion. I think that the Constitution, the draft Constitution, the way it is, responds to the concerns of many, including the main countries, and I think that in the end, you’ll see that we will work very closely in order for the conference to be a success, in order that Europe gets the right institutions to work.

Q. - And Mr Chirac is in no doubt that that’s what Mr Blair wants?

THE AMBASSADOR - Of course.

Q. - Let me ask you about the underlying feelings because there have been difficulties over Iraq where the French view was profoundly different from the American position on Iraq. And that is a deep wound across the Atlantic. Now surely you cannot pretend that a nice day at Number Ten with the exchange of photographs of Leo Blair, and all the rest of it, can put an end to what was a very deep, painful division?

THE AMBASSADOR - Obviously on Iraq we don’t come from the same perspective. You went to war, we didn’t. You have troops on the ground, we haven’t. At the same time, we see what seems to be a change of course which has been portrayed by President Chirac as a move in the right direction. We still think that it is incomplete. We consider that the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people is too long, and the role of the UN is not precise. We can discuss that. The Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, has extended a hand in order to discuss that with our partners. What is important is that we all have a sense of urgency. Because more time means more deaths. And therefore, what we have to do, what we want to do in order to narrow those differences is to have a discussion, based on the same kind of trust that I was speaking about before.

Q. - But if France wants a quicker timetable for control to be given to the Iraqi people, surely the difficulty is that a withdrawal by, let’s say, a large number of American troops too quickly would produce more trouble not less?

THE AMBASSADOR - I think that nobody, certainly not on our part, is speaking about an early withdrawal of the American troops. Nobody.

Q. - Let me ask you finally, Ambassador, about the question of European defence. Because the question which was put by Mr Ancram one moment ago is, for those who are suspicious about this, the crucial one. Namely would there be control of planning of a European defence capability outside the NATO structure? Now, that is something on which Mr Blair’s critics think he has given ground, it is the traditional French view. Is Mr Chirac happy that that is the view that will prevail?

THE AMBASSADOR - I think it’s about time to be serious about European defence. Some people are always looking for ulterior motives. Well, there is no ulterior motive. There is no hidden agenda on our part. European defence is not about ideology. It Is about practicality. Five years ago, at the Saint-Malo summit, it was decided that the European Union has to have the ability to act...

Q. - And to plan outside the NATO structure?

THE AMBASSADOR - ...the ability to act in order to meet its responsibilities. To be able to act you have to have means. These means can come from NATO; these means can be autonomous. The question that we have today before us is how do we plan and conduct those autonomous operations? And we have a proposal on the table; it was said yesterday that we should reach an agreement. Let me say, very clearly, European defence is not against NATO. European defence is not contradictory to NATO, is not in competition with NATO. I would say even that European defence is to the benefit of NATO, because, contrary to what has been said, the biggest threat to the Atlantic Alliance is not the progress of European defence. What would really threaten its future, the future of the Atlantic Alliance...

Q. - ...even if it has a planning capability outside the structure?

THE AMBASSADOR - ...would be a weak, divided Europe abdicating its responsibilities.

Q. - But you accept that a European defence capability of that sort, which you say would run alongside NATO and not threaten it, would in order to have integrity have to have a planning capability?

THE AMBASSADOR - Yes, and this not incompatible. It is consistent. And it has to be consistent. Out of the members of the European Union, eleven are members of the Alliance, we are not schizophrenic, why would we want to undermine NATO when we are a member of it?

Q. - Ambassador Gérard Errera, thank you very much, and we didn’t mention rugby once.

THE AMBASSADOR - Well, we congratulated you on your brilliant victory and we mean it.

Q. - We are ‘Entente Cordiale’, thank you very much.

THE AMBASSADOR - Thank you./.