Today's Date:

We have to ensure the security of the French against a background of heightened dangerousness. These past few years, this threat had been deliberately ignored despite many cries of alarm: even though funding had been provided for in the first LPM (1997-2002), it has suffered continuous cuts. Over the past five years, money was taken from the Defense budget to increase the other budgets, despite a period of growth. The extra State resources would in fact have allowed the implementation of the decisions taken in 1997. Result: the existing equipment hasn't been maintained, the scheduled programmes haven't been launched, or have been delayed. The responsibility of a head of State is not to give in to popularity-seeking arguments such as: "the armed forces are useless", but accurately to assess the country's real needs in order to protect our fellow citizens, both at home and abroad.

Today, the French are genuinely worried: 11 September 2001, then Karachi taught us that terrorism could strike any country, any town and anyone. They have woken up to the existence of new types of weapons, bacteriological and chemical. They know that, in the world, local crises can degenerate at any moment and their repercussions would be terrible. Faced with these threats, it is essential to have effective armies. (...)

Yes. It's a comprehensive programme giving all spheres equal treatment. We have embarked on a major effort on deterrence to protect ourselves, if necessary, against certain regional powers in possession of nuclear weapons. We are also giving ourselves the means to take action in countries identified as terrorist havens. (...) We are developing our material and human intelligence capabilities. On national territory, we have taken measures to combat the terrorists' financial networks and protect the country from terrorist acts, including through specific operations such as "Vigipirate-mer" and "Vigipirate-air" [anti-terrorist security operations protecting ships and aircraft in French waters and airspace] (...).

Defense Europe

The idea is gaining ground, but only two countries have decided really to make defense a financial priority: Britain and France – and France has fallen far behind over the past five years because of budget cuts. This situation has in fact allowed Britain to achieve superiority in areas where we used to be ahead of her. The financial effort reflected by the LPM has been very warmly welcomed by those of our partners I have talked to. Nevertheless, some countries are very concerned about the Maastricht criteria. It might perhaps be necessary – as several countries have suggested – to exclude defence spending from the budget expenditure falling within the framework of the Stability Pact, on terms to be specified, so that Europe can provide itself with the capabilities it needs genuinely to protect itself.

New Aircfraft Carrier/UK

France is keen to adopt a European approach. If that were the case for the aircraft carrier, it wouldn't mean that we intended building one which would belong half to the French and half to the British. The British intend building two aircraft carriers and we, one. Doing part of the work jointly would make significant savings. But that poses a number of problems: what type of aircraft carrier do the British want to build? They haven't yet chosen between VTOL [vertical takeoff and landing] and catapult aircraft. They will do so by January. I should like to set up a study group on the subject since, while the decision in principle has been taken, we haven't decided on the model. (...)./.