Sixteenth Ambassadors’ Conference – Speech by M. Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the Republic

Paris, 27 August 2008

AFGHANISTAN

Ten days ago, ten French soldiers fell in Afghanistan during fighting with Taliban terrorists. They fell in the service of a just cause, as part of a mission approved by the United Nations: the fight against terrorism, the fight for our values, the fight for freedom and the fight for human rights in a country that has been battered by obscurantist barbarism. I hope no one has forgotten those pictures: the stonings organized in stadiums, the mutilations, the flouting of women’s rights, such as had never been seen before. Our soldiers fell to protect France, to protect the French from the direct threat of terrorism, whose source lies largely in that part of the world. What is at stake in Afghanistan is the efficacy of the fight against terrorism.

A year ago, I told you right here that one of the main challenges of the years to come would be to avoid a confrontation between Islam and the West. A confrontation that these extremists, who reject any opening, any kind of modernity, any kind of diversity, who reject even any idea of humanity, would like to provoke. I told you that it was our duty to help and encourage the forces of moderation and modernity in Afghanistan. That is what we have done and that is what we will continue to do.

Our military presence, rightly decided on in 2001, has been strengthened. France is doing her utmost, with her European allies – 25 of our European partners are in Afghanistan, with the exception of Malta and Cyprus. The Americans, Canadians and also the Turks are alongside us to stabilize Afghanistan and prevent a regime allied with al-Qaida from returning to power. We decided to strengthen our presence as part of the new allied strategy defined on France’s initiative at the Bucharest Summit. It remains valid: you commit yourself long term or it’s not worth committing yourself: you commit yourself to a comprehensive civilian and military approach with increased coordination of aid, the necessary cooperation of Pakistan, and especially the progressive takeover of Afghan security responsibilities by the Afghans themselves. That is the priority objective, in my view, because it is the prerequisite for lasting success. In central Afghanistan, in the Kabul region, it is France who since August has been in charge of organizing this transfer of responsibility to the Afghan army within a maximum period of one year. In a year’s time, in central Afghanistan, the Afghan army will be ensuring security in place of France. Tomorrow, 28 August, it will be entrusted with the security of the city of Kabul.

Some say we must focus on the reconstruction. But that is what we have done! Have people already forgotten that we have doubled France’s civilian aid to Afghanistan? Last June, our country, thanks to Bernard Kouchner, hosted a conference in support of Afghanistan that was a remarkable success, since some $20 billion of aid was mobilized for the coming years, for what? For rebuilding Afghanistan.

Of course the situation remains difficult and dangerous. But let’s measure the progress that has been achieved: democratic institutions in Afghanistan with new elections in 2009/2010; nearly six million children attending school when there had been fewer than 800,000 in 2001; a healthcare system that has reduced infant mortality by a quarter, saving the lives of 40,000 children each year; in every sphere, unprecedented progress in the equality of men and women; restored infrastructures; 4,000 kilometres of roads constructed… Who can believe that all this would have been possible without our military presence?

What would the alternative be? So let’s have the debate in front of the French which regrettably hasn’t taken place since 2001. And let’s shoulder our responsibilities honestly and openly. What would the alternative be? A military retreat, OK. This retreat would be followed by the return of the Taliban and al-Qaida, and moreover, the certain destabilization of neighbouring Pakistan, who I want to reiterate possesses nuclear weapons. Let everyone grasp what is at stake with our presence in that region of the world. Suppose we abandon Pakistan, suppose we abandon Afghanistan. Then let no one come to complain about the upsurge of terrorism in our democracies. And then is this withdrawal conceivable for France, a permanent member of the Security Council? France will shoulder her responsibilities. France will not give in to terrorists. She will fight them wherever they may be found, holding the firm belief that the Afghan people, supported by their allies, will triumph over barbarism and progressively themselves ensure their own security.

BREAKS WITH FRANCE’S PAST FOREIGN POLICY

Ambassadors,

Since our first meeting exactly one year ago today, the world has experienced several major changes that mark, to a certain degree, the advent of a new era.

The breaks with the past that I had proposed to the French, and which have been implemented over the past 15 months, have been validated, if this was necessary. In a world where everything is changing at an accelerated pace, France must change deeply and quickly if she wants to remain among the leaders, among the nations that make history because they have refused to sit on their hands.

In France itself, the ongoing process of reform will continue in every arena and at the same pace. My determination, and that of the government, is total. We simply do not have a choice, and the French have understood this. So has the world, noting that France is on the move, that she rejects the heralded decline and is demonstrating before the world her ability to transform calmly and serenely.

France’s repositioning on the world stage was conducted with equal determination, despite the concerns expressed in various quarters. Fifteen months have given us sufficient perspective to judge the effects of these breaks with the past – I said breaks with the past – on the foreign policy front which I had announced during the election campaign. I would like to give you a first progress report in five major areas.

US/NATO/EUROPEAN DEFENCE

Our first break with the past was in our relations with the United States and the Atlantic Alliance.

I wanted to situate France openly and clearly within the Western family, to restore our relationship of trust with the American people and its leaders, whom I remind you were chosen democratically. I wanted to revamp our relationship with the Atlantic Alliance. Why?

During the decades when there were two great superpowers, and for the ten years that there was a single superpower, it was correct and desirable for our country to mark its difference with respect to Washington. But a few years ago, we entered a radically different period that will persist for several decades and that I shall characterize as an “era of relative powers.” Not that the United States has lost its formidable strengths, but the meteoric rise of China, India and Brazil and the return of Russia are creating a radically new situation. No country is any longer in a position to impose its vision of things on its own; objective conditions exist for a new concert of great powers but it still has to be organized. Just as the new international order the world needs in order to deal with global problems still has to be invented.

During this transition period, when familiar landmarks are becoming harder to discern, I thought I should clearly state where France stands and which values and interests are essential to her. Where there is only one great power, one has to affirm one’s independence vis-à-vis that great power. When there is a system with two powers, one can affirm one’s desire to be between the two, even if one is closer to one of them. But in the concert of relative powers, one has to say things as they are, where France is: France is alongside her allies, in her Western family.

I’ve noticed moreover that no one is any longer saying or writing that by choosing this path, France has given up her independence or lost her sovereignty. But some remain worried: might France lose some of her room to manoeuvre or see her image undermined in the world?

I am convinced of the opposite. France, it seems to me, has gained credibility. She has given herself more room to act and increased her ability to wield influence both inside and outside her family, because when you are inside your family you have more latitude to discuss with all the others since the others have no doubts about France’s place.

The NATO Summit in Bucharest last April offered a perfect example of this: for the first time since the creation of the Alliance, the President of the United States gave clear public support for the European defence project. He did so because he was convinced that France did not wish to weaken the Atlantic Alliance through this European project, that the two were complementary rather than antagonistic. Why has European defence not made headway over the last few years? For one major reason: those who were making this choice alongside us were afraid that by doing so we wanted to weaken the Alliance. Since this no longer applies, we have far more latitude to build an independent European policy. The Polish authorities and other reputed “Atlanticists” have expressed their support for our approach for the same reason.

MIDDLE EAST

Our second break with the past was with respect to our position in the Middle East.

How many times have I heard people voice a fear that I could sum up as follows: “If you express France’s friendship for Israel too clearly, we will lose our special relationship with the Arab world.” Another historical error.

I have always been convinced that the opposite was true. For me, restoring a strong and lasting relationship of trust with Israel’s leaders and with the Israeli people was a natural step. Natural since it’s a democracy, but above all because it’s the necessary condition for increasing France’s influence in the Middle East. First, because you can’t contribute to peace if you don’t have the trust of the two parties concerned. And second, because you can say many things when you’re received as a friend.

The speech I delivered at the Knesset contained several messages that were hard to hear for a large part of the members of Parliament and Israeli people. Yet it was warmly received among both Israelis and Palestinians and throughout the Arab world.

A week before France was to assume her presidency of the European Union, at a time when we were preparing to return to the Quartet, it was important for our country to express its message clearly and forcefully, a message that is the same for both parties: a message of friendship, of commitment and of truth concerning the conditions for peace.

Another major change: our relations with Syria.

A year ago, I asserted the importance of reconciliation with all those who were ready to change. We began with Libya and we continued with Syria.

There too, what didn’t I hear! According to some (including some in Washington, let it be said in passing), the only diplomatic option available was Syria’s isolation. I preferred to take a different path, a more risky one, it’s true, but also more promising: that of a clear dialogue leading to tangible progress. It was not easy, and the lack of progress led me to suspend further dialogue on 30 December until the development occurred that we and the Arab League had been waiting for: the election, in Lebanon, of President Michel Suleiman.

The talks we had with President Bashar al-Assad on 12 July in Paris led to progress on two new fronts: the solemn announcement of the establishment of diplomatic relations, for the first time in the two countries’ history, between Beirut and Damascus; and Syria’s decision to see France co-sponsor with the United States direct Syrian-Israeli negotiations, when the time comes, on issues such as the implementation of the ensuing peace agreement, including security arrangements.

Here too, restoring trustful relations with the other partner in peace, Israel, as with the United States, played a major role. It’s also because Syria knows that we now have excellent relations with those two countries that Damascus wanted France to shoulder this unprecedented responsibility in due time. I will be travelling to Syria on 3 and 4 September to continue this necessary dialogue on these and other issues.

My hope is that in a not-too-distant future, Lebanon and Israel will in turn engage in indirect discussions and that France will be able to contribute to their success, at the request of both parties.

But the most striking validation of the new course our Middle East policy is taking came at the Union for the Mediterranean summit on 13-14 July. For the 10th anniversary of the Barcelona Process – I apologise for reminding you of this – only one Arab leader had agreed to make the trip: President Mahmoud Abbas. Only one. What a policy with a dialogue between Europe and the Arab world with only one Arab representative! On 14 July in Paris, every Arab country invited except one was represented by a head of State or government. This was unprecedented. And all of them sat around the same round table with the Prime Minister of Israel and the European leaders. This major project is now a reality and France, together with the Egyptian Co-President, will do her utmost to ensure that the four ministerial meetings taking place this autumn lead to the swift implementation of the six ambitious projects adopted on 13 July. The restored friendship and trust with Israel won’t hinder our policy in the Middle East; on the contrary, they give it its full weight and all the possible levers.

EU

Our third break with the past involved the European Union.

There has been much rambling on about Franco-German tensions, notably over the Union for the Mediterranean project. It is not unusual, on major issues, for our two countries’ positions to be different at the start. The important thing is our will to reach a good compromise. That is what we have succeeded in doing between France and Germany and, after taking a little bit of time to get back up to speed, Franco-German understanding – which in my view remains crucial – is stronger than ever.

But when it comes to the European Union, the break is somewhere else. When I took office, France was on Europe’s “substitutes’ bench”. As all convinced Europeans well know, as a result of the 2005 referendum – let’s say things as they are – but not entirely because of it: our country was still playing the European game in a way that perhaps had its merits 20 years ago, but was out of sync with the realities of today’s Europe. We can’t have the same European policy today as 20 years ago.

I wanted to establish straightaway close, confident cooperation with the Commission and its remarkable President, Mr José Manuel Barroso. It’s strange for a French president to say that he has confidence in the Commission, I do so. But you are blind to the balances in Europe if you think we can build a European ideal denying the importance of the Commission and ignoring the importance of the European Parliament. As regards the European Parliament, I have received its President, and the leaders of the parliamentary groups individually at the Elysée, which is unprecedented. If you want to play by Europe’s rules, you have to work with the important institutions.

UK/CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

In the same spirit, I initiated a systematic dialogue with all our partners. I am thinking in particular of the United Kingdom, which, I am convinced, has an essential role to play in modernizing our Europe. But I am thinking too of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, with whom our relations had grown more distant – that’s putting it mildly – even though many of them share our vision of a more political, more proactive Europe. For in a Europe of 27, each country must be able to make its voice heard, must feel listened to and respected. The right to have a say in Europe doesn’t depend on the length of a country’s membership of the European Union. That is the condition for any agreement, and it is how we achieved the signature of the Lisbon Treaty. It was in this same spirit of attentive listening that I went to Dublin in July.

Here, in your presence, I would like to thank the Prime Minister, Bernard Kouchner, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, all the Paris officials and all the Ambassadors involved. They prepared the French presidency methodically and ambitiously, and without their work no success will be possible. Today France is again at the heart of European activity and everyone must realize that in Europe France is determined to be a team player!

AFRICA

Our fourth break with the past concerns Africa.

First, there is a trial I take exception to, that of “Françafrique”,¹ if the aim is to undermine the ties France and her former colonies wanted to maintain after independence. After all, France shouldn’t be criticized for sucessfully maintaining ties of friendship, which the United Kingdom, Portugal and Spain didn’t manage to do in the same part of the world. It is to France’s credit that we provided these nations, at their request, with massive and multifaceted aid packages. France is a loyal friend. She accepts without complexes the ties woven by history.

At the same time, I wanted to recognize a real problem of perception, notably among the younger African generations. Africa is the world’s youth. The study that our ambassadors in Africa conducted highlighted an unvarnished image of a France allegedly exploiting for her sole profit the continent’s resources through entrenched networks. It’s not pleasant, but it’s the image perceived among the young African elite.

Economic realities totally contradict these perceptions and in politics, perceptions are important. So we have to correct those that may be a source of misunderstandings. That was the whole meaning of the speech I delivered before the South African Parliament in Cape Town on 28 February this year, underscoring the urgent need to modernize our development assistance instruments in order to give priority to supporting the private sector; signalling our resolve to establish solid partnerships with South Africa, Angola and Nigeria without neglecting our old friends.

DEFENCE AGREEMENTS

But I want to go beyond words and support this new African policy through actions: the systematic revision of our defence agreements and reduction of our military bases are a highly symbolic act. The French armed forces aren’t there to support regimes. We will have to tailor our agreements to our current mission. Let me add that I want all these agreements published. I don’t see why there should be secrecy in relations between Africa and France. We must strengthen the training of regional African peacekeeping units in strict respect of our commitments, without intervening in domestic conflicts as we demonstrated in February this year as regards Chad. And we want to cooperate with the UN, the African Union and sub-regional organizations in order to resolve conflicts. Similarly, we want to support democratic regimes and defend human rights. Our recent role in Mauritania offers a perfect illustration of this.

HUMAN RIGHTS/DARFUR/HOSTAGES

Our fifth and final break with the past relates precisely to human rights.

I had said this would be a foreign policy priority for us. It is not only a priority, but a concern at every moment.

Yet, what haven’t we heard! I respect and support those who are engaged on the ground and who, through their words, through their testimony, play an irreplaceable role, alerting us to abuses and exerting pressure. I ask them simply to understand that a head of State or foreign minister is in a different situation, requiring ways of action that, while different, are no less worthy especially as they are singularly more effective.

Bernard Kouchner, Rama Yade and I decided that France had to be much more involved in finding a solution to Darfur, which is certainly the worst tragedy the world is facing today. What are we defending in Darfur if it isn’t human rights? Hence the Paris conference in June last year; hence the efforts under way to pick up the threads of a dialogue without which there will be no lasting political solution; hence the deployment, on our initiative, of the European force on Chad’s border to protect hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced persons. Again it was French diplomacy which obtained the release of a number of political opponents. Here too the lives of millions of hapless people were at stake. France worked for peace. France worked to defend human rights.

Wherever French troops are deployed, in operations ranging from Afghanistan to Côte d’Ivoire, from Lebanon to Kosovo, it is to promote peace, democracy, freedom and the defence of human rights.

But on this essential question of human rights, there remains a difficult debate concerning the conditions for effective action. Here I would like to share with you my inner thoughts on two countries – Russia and China – as an example. All accounts confirm that the citizens of those two countries largely support their leaders. Not because they are unaware of the progress that remains to be made with respect to freedoms and democracy. But because they consider that what has been achieved in terms of economic and human development is remarkable and has restored their national pride.

Does this mean we should refrain from talking to them about human rights or give up their universality? Of course not! When I travelled with Bernard Kouchner to Moscow on 12 August to obtain a halt to the fighting in Georgia, wasn’t the fate of tens of thousands of men, women and children hanging in the balance? By getting the ceasefire, did France not do her job of furthering human rights? I believe I am the first French president to have publicly affirmed our positions on the death penalty and press freedoms before my Chinese counterpart at a press conference, telling him that the death penalty wasn’t compatible with the great power status China has today. But, ladies and gentlemen, we must approach these difficult subjects, including that of minorities, in a way that leads to tangible, positive results, not to a sterile confrontation. Let’s not forget that it is also with these two countries that we are dealing with such weighty problems as Darfur, Afghanistan, Iran and the global economy. Who, here, can imagine that we can ensure peace in the world without having the possibility of discussing with China or Russia?

There is a path. I will continue to follow it, concerned only with achieving results, but without creating lasting antagonisms that would serve no cause, and certainly not that of human rights. The one which consists, from the outside, in lecturing the whole world, ignoring history and ignoring sensitivities, eventually proves counterproductive for the progress of mankind.

And for me, a life is a life. I am proud that France put an end to the eight-and-a-half-year ordeal of the Bulgarian nurses and Palestinian doctor. And how would it have been possible without talking to Colonel Gaddafi? I am happy that France was fully involved in the release of Ingrid Betancourt after she had been held for five and a half years and of several Colombian hostages by speaking not just to President Uribe but also to all the leaders of South America, including President Chavez. Who can explain to me that he’ll be able to snatch Corporal Shalit, held for two years and who hasn’t been able to give any news at all to his family, without talking to the Syrians? I’ve sometimes been asked why I fight so fiercely to obtain these hostage releases. Well, simply because it’s a matter of human rights, quite simply of human rights! My duty as President and as a human being is to spare no effort to extract all these victims from such hells.

GLOBALIZATION/FINANCIAL CRISIS

Ambassadors,

As I said before, this past year has marked the advent of a new era. Allow me to return to this point and try to tell you why.

The analysis I shared with you last year concerning globalization and the main challenges facing France remains valid.

Yet three factors have combined to change the situation.

The first factor that marked this past year is of course the financial crisis that began with the subprime scandal, the grave – but still unpunished – mistakes of rating agencies, and more generally, the excesses of a financial capitalism that has got scandalously off track, with the concealment of risks, unverified and highly complicated financial instruments, legal loopholes and the persistence of tax havens attracting a share of world savings that would be more justly used to finance investments and growth. According to the IMF, these lapses will cost the international banking system about a thousand billion dollars in the long-term. But the cost to the real economy is even higher.

While the main epicentres of previous financial crises were the emerging countries, let’s face up to the truth: it is now the heart of world capitalism that is being hit, with the prospect, if we do nothing, of a permanent disconnect between the growth of OECD countries and that of the emerging countries, which for the time being have been less sharply affected. That is why we must first continue to do everything we can at EU level to promote the growth of the European economy. Re-establishing confidence requires the consolidation of the European financial sector and a resolute effort to strengthen transparency, responsibility and oversight. We can no longer let a few dozen speculators endanger world growth. And this way the EU will make the most effective contribution to the effort that must be pursued to correct the shortcomings and deficiencies of the international financial system. What has happened can’t stay, remain unpunished.

The second factor that has changed the situation over the past year is the skyrocketing raw material prices, which are, overall, at their highest level since World War II. The reasons for this are many and well known. I will not dwell on them here. What’s important here is to be able to measure the consequences of this deep shock, beyond its recessive effect on world growth and to correct its effects.

AGRICULTURE

I want to talk first of all about agricultural products. It is shocking to realize that the world was taken by surprise by what all the statistical data heralded. At a time when we have to feed an additional 50 million people each year, at a time when the emerging countries are rapidly changing their eating habits, world production has not followed suit. With the increased cost of inputs, skyrocketing prices became a certainty. We have seen the results: some 30 countries from Haiti to Guinea have seen hunger riots.

During the FAO summit in Rome on 3 June, I proposed a three-point plan that was taken up by the entire international community which must be implemented resolutely: creation of a group made up of the best experts, as was done for the environment with the IPCC, to make reliable forecasts by product and by region. On the basis of these forecasts, we have to adopt a global strategy implemented consistently by all the international institutions concerned, from the FAO to the IMF to the WTO. Finally, we have to mobilize existing financial capabilities through the World Bank and regional banks’ reinvestment in agricultural development, notably in Africa, and a call for long-term investors such as sovereign wealth funds. On this major issue, I want France to take the lead.

OIL PRICE/ENERGY

As for hydrocarbon prices, everyone now realizes that we have definitively entered the age of scarce, expensive energy. Prices will continue to fluctuate around a long-term rising trend and the decades to come will be marked by two inevitable constraints: need to get out of an oil-based economy; and improve the global economy’s energy efficiency. It is a huge effort, much of which still remains to be accomplished. From this standpoint, 2008 truly marks the beginning of a new era, one that will notably see dozens of countries following the path that France chose years ago – that of civilian nuclear energy.

UPSURGE IN NATIONALISM

The third factor is political in nature and more sensitive: confirmation of a significant trend among emerging countries and Russia: as they assert their economic success, these countries are experiencing an upsurge in nationalism. We saw it in China during the Olympic Games, which that country saw as a confirmation of its return to the top ranks after a century and a half of difficulties and humiliations. We see it in India, where large companies are buying up foreign businesses. We see it in Russia, where the traumas of the 1990s have unfortunately led to a desire for restoration that some describe as imperial.

The cards of economic and political power have been reshuffled.

Export strategies, strategies to control the supply of raw materials are profoundly altering the way world markets operate. Commercial and financial flows are being restructured. In 2007, China overtook the United States as the second-largest global exporter. While the working-age population of the United States, Japan and the EU totals 500 million people, there are 2.3 billion workers in emerging countries progressively entering a now globalized job market. That’s the challenge.

WTO

Bolstered by this new economic situation, emerging countries and Russia want to become part of this new concert of great powers, but on their own terms, not on ours. The days when the West dictated the tone, and the West served as a benchmark and imposed its vision are over. One example among others is the WTO.

During previous negotiation rounds, when the US and the EU reached an agreement, all the other players had no other choice but to rally around it. In July, in Geneva, the failure of the talks was confirmed when India refused to give in to American demands, dismaying Brazil, which wanted an agreement. It took seven years of negotiations within the framework of the Doha round to reach this point! So should we continue without changing anything, or shouldn’t we, rather, consider a new way of negotiating and schedule a meeting of the main heads of State concerned in order to discuss ways to end the deadlock and future adjustments to be made to the very manner the multilateral trade negotiations are carried out? France has always spoken out on behalf of free trade. She wants Europe, the most open trading bloc in the world, to take the lead, but with our eyes open and in a spirit of reciprocity.

In the new concert of powers, the general interest carries far less weight than the vigorous defence of national priorities. The emerging giants now have the means to make themselves heard, but their instinct is every man for himself. It has become much harder to seek satisfactory compromises on global issues, from the environment to energy and financial stability. It is a fact we must take into account.

What can we conclude from these three developments that have marked the past year and represent major risks?

FRENCH RESPONSE TO NEW GLOBAL SITUATION/INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL REFORM

For France, two complementary responses are obviously vital: we must both strengthen Europe, an essential global player, and breathe new life into the initiatives on world governance. I won’t stop fighting for this. Given the challenges of the twenty-first century, we can no longer rely on the international institutions of the twentieth.

How can we convince the emerging powers to play as a team if we don’t bring them into the game? A new boost to Security Council reform is urgently needed and France supports the principle of an interim solution. The transformation of the G8 into the G13 or, even better, into the G14, to enable an Arab country to participate, is on the right track; at France’s instigation, the next G8 summit will be held for more than half the time in a G13 format. What an odd idea to want to settle major global matters without China, without India, without Brazil, without any African country! Since the creation of all these organizations, we’ve changed centuries.

So there is another major area we must start working on if, in the twenty-first century, we want to have the effective multilateral tools. What am I referring to?

Since the creation of the United Nations system and Bretton Woods institutions following the war, the number of nations has quadrupled and that of international organizations has increased tenfold. Today, these same nations pass laws and adopt decisions in each of these institutions without worrying about their overall consistency or even their compatibility. In a word, the international system is fragmented to the point that there is no comprehensive vision to be found anywhere.

The WTO offers an illuminating example. Not only has it become increasingly difficult, from one negotiating round to the next, to find a global compromise acceptable to all. On top of that, no one asks whether the choices negotiated on agriculture, for example, help address the alarming diagnosis issued within the FAO framework and are consistent with the strategies developed by the World Bank. On one side people say: "we must produce more", and on the other they say: "we must produce less".

The same nations take part in these different organizations. But there aren’t fora for reflection and arbitration capable of ensuring the consistency of the entire multilateral system, particularly the pertinence of the approaches chosen. So, from my point of view, clearly, for security-related issues, it is the enlarged Security Council that will have the remit to be the decision-making body, even more than it does already. And when it comes to the economy and global issues, I see only the G13/G14 as an informal but effective forum for arbitration. So we’d have the enlarged Security Council which would arbitrate on all global security issues and the G14 which would arbitrate on all the major economic, environmental, social and trade issues. That shows you the importance of this progressive transformation of the G8 into the G13 or even G14.

EU

Ambassadors,

On the issue of twenty-first century world governance, the EU can be a reference and a major player. Why?

Because the era of “relative powers” that we have entered and the shortcomings of a fragmented multilateral system carry with them the risks of instability, rivalries and clashes. But this new situation can also lead to more solid, more lasting cooperation if it is based on shared principles and compromises worked out in common.

For five decades now, Europeans have learned to pursue between themselves this necessary cooperation between “relative powers”. This is the European message. We are relative powers which have learned to compromise and cooperate. Building together, seeking each day the solutions that take into account the interests of each party and transcend them in a collective action, has become second nature for Europeans. That is how we established the single market, created the euro and negotiated the Lisbon Treaty.

I believe it is up to the Europeans to propose such a cooperative approach to the world. Today, notions of enemy or adversary no longer have currency among the great powers. The whole question is whether ideas of responsible partnership and harmony can prevail over those of competition and rivalry.

LISBON TREATY

First, however, Europe itself must have the institutions it needs to assume its responsibilities – those of a global player. That is one of the main merits of the Lisbon Treaty, with the creation of a stable European Council president, who consults closely with EU heads of State and government, and that of a High Representative who has an actual European diplomatic corps at his disposal funded by the Community budget.

As President of the European Council, it is my duty to do my utmost to bring the European family together. The Irish people have a right to be heard and respected by us. At the same time, we all need the Lisbon Treaty. With Prime Minister Brian Cowen, we are going to identify the guarantees that can allow Europe to take this new step forward in its construction.

If necessary, Bernard Kouchner and I will go back to Dublin. I am convinced we must get everyone to move towards the Lisbon Treaty, leave no one behind. I tell our Irish friends that we need them, that Europe needs them, that we respect them but that they must also heed the appeal from all the other Europeans who want revamped institutions for Europe.

GEORGIA/NATO/RUSSIA

The crisis in Georgia showed for the first time that, if it wanted to, Europe could be in the vanguard at the outset of a conflict to seek a peaceful solution. The EU’s basic mission is to ensure peace and protect Europeans. What’s at stake in this conflict is essential. Its outcome will determine for a long time to come the European Union’s relations with Russia. For Europeans, the only possible solution is one that is based on the law, on a dialogue that includes all the parties, and on respect for Georgia’s sovereignty, respect for her independence and respect for her territorial integrity within her internationally recognized borders.

The six-point ceasefire agreement of 12 August, which bears the signatures of President Medvedev, President Saakashvili and my own, must be applied in its entirety. The military forces that have not yet withdrawn to the lines they held prior to the outbreak of hostilities must move immediately. The international mechanism that is to replace the Russian patrols around South Ossetia must be deployed swiftly. The international discussions provided for in point 6 of the agreement on the security and stability arrangements in Abkhazia and South Ossetia must begin as soon as possible. In this context, the European Union has firmly condemned Russia’s unilateral decision to recognize the independence of these two territories. This decision, designed to make a unilateral change to Georgia’s borders, is totally unacceptable.

More fundamentally, in Europe it took us centuries of clashes and two world wars to understand that peace and prosperity are built with neighbours whose interests are respected and taken into account. It is this approach that Europe is proposing to Russia and to all the European nations that are not members of the EU: together we can build a future of shared peace and prosperity.

No one wants to return to the time of the Cold War. NATO is not Russia’s adversary but her partner. As for the European Union, it is resolved to build a positive, substantive relationship with that country. Today it is up to Russia to make a fundamental choice. France, with her EU partners, has demonstrated by her initiatives how much she hopes Russia will choose understanding and cooperation, respect for the principles of the UN and OSCE charters. The European Council I will convene on 1 September will be the opportunity for the 27 EU Member States to define a common line on this fundamental issue, that of our relations with Russia.

MEDITERRANEAN

The second circle in our neighbourhood is of course that of the Mediterranean and the Middle East. I have already mentioned the launch of the Union for the Mediterranean. I won’t go back to it except to emphasize that for me what’s at stake there is just as important as what we want to accomplish on European soil.

IRAN

There’s another issue on which Europe took the initiative and continues to play a major role: Iran. In 2003, Germany, the United Kingdom and France, with the High Representative, defined on behalf of Europe a strategy of dialogue and sanctions based on one conviction: the international community cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Joined by the United States, Russia and China, the Europeans must firmly and decisively stay the course and, in the absence of a response from Iran, step up sanctions in every area. For two reasons: no one has a better strategy to offer, and if we should fail, we all know the catastrophic alternative which would face the world, which I summed up last year in a few words: the Iranian bomb or bombing Iran. No one wants us to end up with that disaster.

I hope the dialogue with Iran will continue and that her leaders realize the gravity of the stakes for their country. I invite them to think about how future generations will judge the choices they make today. For it is up to Iran to decide. If Iran wants civilian nuclear power, Iran will be helped to obtain civilian nuclear power. If Iran wants military nuclear power, the international community will oppose that ambition. Everything must be done to convince Tehran to choose cooperation over isolation and confrontation.

DEFENCE EUROPE

With respect to peace and security, we all too often overlook the fact that over the past 10 years, the EU has conducted some 15 military and police operations from the Balkans to the Middle East to Africa. The time has come to take a new step, reviving the building of Defence Europe so that it makes a growing contribution to world security. By the end of our presidency, through a concrete, pragmatic approach, we can adopt an updated, more complete security strategy: by agreeing on the level of ambition for our operations and on the military and civilian capabilities we will need; by deciding to develop, between volunteer countries, the equipment we need; by organizing the training of our officers in a "military Erasmus"; and finally by progressing towards a strong and competitive European defence. This is the condition I will set on the definition of a new relationship with NATO. It isn’t the European defence policy or NATO, it’s the European defence policy and NATO. The two are perfectly complementary.

A growing player in international peace and security, the EU can also play a decisive role in seeking solutions to the global problems of the twenty-first century. It must promote its values, defend its interests, protect its citizens and demand reciprocity whenever necessary. I intend examining with the Commission how the EU, which provides 60% of the world’s total development aid and is by far the planet’s leading commercial power, can make itself better known and use its assets more effectively to serve its objectives.

CAP

I am thinking in particular of agriculture, in which the EU is an essential player. We must continue to modernize the Common Agricultural Policy and prepare the principles that will underpin the CAP of tomorrow. It is one of the great challenges of the French Presidency and a strategic interest of France as well as Europe.

Faced with the economic slowdown affecting the entire world and notably threatening Europe, the EU must act swiftly and decisively. The French presidency’s objectives are more relevant than ever: swiftly strengthen the rules and norms concerning stability and financial oversight, rating agencies and solvency, since the lack of transparency and uncertainty create mistrust; support action targeting SMEs, notably within the framework of the European Small Business Act. You wonder, on this subject, why what is good for the Americans and is authorized for the Americans should be bad for the Europeans and prohibited for the Europeans. Finally, we are working on giving a vigorous boost to the energy efficiency policies. I am determined to further accelerate – with the Commission, the European Parliament and our 26 partners – the adoption of these measures to protect and strengthen European growth.

MIGRATION

In the very sensitive area of migration, the European pact we will sign this autumn could serve as a reference. Based on the recognition of the usefulness of organized, accepted legal immigration, on the fight against illegal immigration and on real cooperation with the countries concerned, this pact offers Europe’s partners a mutually beneficial cooperative approach.

ENERGY/CLIMATE

But it is very probably in the area of energy and the climate that the EU can most strongly contribute to shaping the world of the twenty-first century. This is the most important long-term issue and if the European Union wants to carry weight in the effort to convince the other world regions to make the same choices as us, the European Union must be exemplary and not lag behind. How can we tell the Chinese and Indians to follow us if we ourselves aren’t capable of setting the example?

We are both the first generation that knows with certainty that human activity has a direct effect on climate change and the last generation in a position to act before irreversible consequences upset planetary balances.

The Bali negotiations ending in December 2009 in Copenhagen will tell if all nations are capable of uniting on objectives that are both ambitious and realistic. In reality, some 15 countries are responsible for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. Half of them are members of the G8, and the other half are the great emerging nations, notably China and India. In these negotiations, in which everyone is waiting for others to make the first move, only the European Union can trigger a dynamic that leads to success, i.e. to necessary reciprocal commitments by all participants. That is the huge challenge of the “energy-climate” package that will share out the efforts the EU is prepared to make between its 27 member countries. All this will be decided at the end of this year, and I personally pledge, with Jean-Louis Borloo, to ensure that Europe is up to the challenge.

EU’S GLOBAL ROLE

Ambassadors,

You can see that, even more than it realizes, the European Union can help shape the world of the twenty-first century. First, through what it represents: the most successful example of an approach that replaces rivalry with cooperation thanks to common rules and a spirit of compromise.

And secondly, through the essential role it is called upon to play in order to build a world of prosperity, stability and democracy. But this Europe must express a will. We mustn’t hesitate to promote debate and my task is also to change the perception of Europe. Being a good European doesn’t mean refraining from saying what one thinks. Europe needs ideas. Europe needs a will, Europe needs to express its views, Europe needs us to get out of the rut and once again enthuse Europeans for the debates on which our future depends.

It is my deep conviction that the twenty-first century can also be Europe’s century. But the EU must show itself to be worthy of the legacy it received from its founding fathers and prove to its partners and citizens that it is capable of ambition, will and vision. From this point of view, we mustn’t reject any debate.

FRENCH EU PRESIDENCY

This is the fundamental mission France is setting herself during her presidency. For her part, France must remain in the vanguard of the European project, and we political leaders must take responsibility for our choices. We must defend Europe and not hide nervously behind it explaining that everything that’s wrong is Europe’s fault when we have, very often, not had the courage to accept our responsibilities. France must organize herself accordingly. We will use the conclusions of the two White Papers, one on foreign and European policy, the other on defence and national security so as to be even more efficient. May I particularly thank Alain Juppé, Louis Schweitzer and Jean-Claude Mallet for their contribution to these two days and above all for their contribution to drafting the two reports.

Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to end by telling you that people customarily say that international politics and European politics don’t interest the French. This is another wholly inaccurate cliché since the French clearly understand that, thanks to an active European policy, thanks to an ambitious foreign policy, they are being protected. We are protecting France not just at her borders; we are protecting France by getting her to play a major role in a European framework; we are protecting France by unambiguously putting France in her Western family; we are protecting France by heading a diplomatic service with a remit to look at issues worldwide, talking to everyone, without excluding anyone; and we’re protecting France by defending France’s ideas.

You will have understood, this meeting before our ambassadors, whom I thank for the work they do, cher Bernard Kouchner, cher Jean-Pierre Jouyet, chère Rama Yade and cher Alain Joyandet, was for me an extremely important one./.

---

¹ France’s former, somewhat proprietorial Africa policy often based on personal relationships.