Today's Date:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Before the attacks on September11, any speech about Franco-American relations would be invariably organized into two sections : First, the United Sates and France share common values and a solid alliance is based on this cultural proximity. Second : France will not suppress its differences and just tag along. Conclusion: we have always agreed on what is fundamental and we must find some accommodation on other matters. The theme of the “special relationship” or “the reliable but prickly ally” was well and truly explored. It gave a fairly accurate picture of our bilateral relations even if I am making it seem something of a caricature.

But is that depiction still pertinent in the wake of September 11 ? Recent frictions and some of the editorials in the American and French press (Francophobia vs anti-Americanism) would seem to suggest that France as an ally has become more troublesome, that it isn’t reliable. For my part, I believe nothing could be farther from the truth. The 9/11 attacks do not challenge the basic givens of the Franco-American relationship. Quite the contrary. The attacks have, however, had the effect of amplifying what we have in common and exacerbating our differences.

So that is how we come to be in this paradoxical situation today : we have never been so close yet we have rarely risked so much in opposing each other. I’d like to share with you some personal views on the state of bilateral relations and how we might improve them.

I/ The tragic attacks on September 11 brought out one fact that is so obvious that we will not discuss it : we present a common front when one of us is attacked or when the values we believe in are threatened.

1/ The attacks on 9/11 brought an intensity to bilateral relations that had not been seen in a very long time. President Chirac was the first foreign head of state to meet President Bush after the attacks and to visit New York. For the first time, another country’s national anthem, “the Star Spangled Banner,” resounded in the courtyard of the Elysée at a ceremony in memory of the victims of the attack. Aside from the official reactions expressing solidarity, the people of France as a whole were moved to express their sympathy and sadness. Le Monde, which is not known for being particularly pro-American, summed up the national feeling in France after 9/11 when it headlined an editorial: “We are all Americans.”

2/ Aside from such unanimous, spontaneous expressions of solidarity, our renewed closeness was immediately reflected in action in the war on terrorism. In all its aspects: military, police, judicial, financial. France has made a military contribution to the campaign in Afghanistan, providing 4,500 soldiers, 40 aircraft, the carrier Charles de Gaulle, 12 ships and a submarine. France is part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul. It has announced a contribution for 2002 of about 30 million euros for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Together with the United States we also sponsored Security Council resolution 1368 on September 12 which said the U.S. had a legitimate right to defend itself, and resolution 1373, which imposes on states for the first time a series of binding obligations in the war on terrorism. More specifically, our bilateral cooperation in the area of intelligence is excellent. And in judicial and police matters, our ties have never been so close. Furthermore, we are working closely on action to deal with terrorist financing (see the “roadmap” or charter of the war against terrorism adopted by the 15 just after 9/11). I would add that the proliferation of WMD is also a common concern and a field of close cooperation between us.

3/ As a matter of fact, our positions coincide on many international issues where we cooperate closely. I have just briefly mentioned Afghanistan, where French and Americans are trying together, with the whole coalition, to give the country efficient economic structures (minus the drug smuggling), democratic political representation, and an army to serve national security, not just a few warlords. The Balkans offer another case in point : in Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and also Albania, French and Americans have the same objectives and are pooling military and financial resources to bring these countries peace and prosperity, stability and integration in European and Atlantic structures.

The 9/11 attacks, far from straining our relations, actually reinforced them in all of these fields. For instance, in the Balkans the European countries, led by France, Britain and Germany, are gradually taking over from the Americans who are preoccupied by other theaters. It’s useful to recall the issues where there is complete harmony between us. Let’s not overlook them, or take them for granted. Naturally, they’re rarely the stuff of headlines. But they do actually constitute a fairly substantial part of diplomatic relations. They reflect the existence of a privileged relationship between France and the U.S., and more broadly, between Europe and the U.S.

II/ In spite of that, our differences are growing and sometimes tend to overshadow all the rest.

The situation is something of a paradox, almost verging on schizophrenia. I’ve thought about this and find it normal, not pathological and I believe we should expect to see a rising number of differences. On the other hand, we have to come up with ways to hold them in check so they don’t worsen and end up poisoning all our relations.

I would identify three examples of major areas of differences, in the broad sense, by growing order of difficulty : The first are of a commercial nature, the second relate to societal issues and the third involve diplomatic and political questions.

1/ I will mention only two commercial problems, the ones that are in my view the most important and the most urgent. With regard to Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC), the decisions handed down by the WTO panels require a profound change in American fiscal regulations. Recent congressional hearings showed that the Bush Administration was fully conscious of its obligations. Congress, however, seems to be more divided and more hesitant. Europeans, through Commissioner Lamy, expressed their determination to see their rights prevail, by retaliation if necessary. Certainly, the American election calendar is not favorable to the adoption of a large-scale tax reform this year. But the United States must guarantee that it will make a good-faith effort to rapidly comply with the WTO rules.

A word on steel. President Bush’s decision to increase customs duties up to 30% on certain steel products is unacceptable. As much for us as it is for other European countries, Russia, Japan and Brazil. It is unacceptable for several reasons: it is in violation of WTO rules; it casts discredit on U.S. commitments to free trade; it is discriminatory; it was obviously taken for strictly domestic political considerations; it doesn’t solve the real difficulties certain U.S. steel producers are facing; it could depress the American and international economy; lastly, it exposes the U.S. to retaliatory measures. France has been hit hard by these measures even though it had accepted painful restructuring in its own steel industry. We fully support the action of Commissioner Lamy both in regard to the European measures that have been decided on to protect the European market and the request for compensation that has been sent to the American authorities. We must avoid all escalation and a solution that is in compliance with WTO rules.

2/ I will also limit myself to two societal issues : the environment and biotechnologies. The announcement of the American withdrawal from the Kyoto Agreement was the first snag in the transatlantic relationship under the Bush Administration. The measures announced by the United States to limit greenhouse gas emissions seem, at first glance, far below the commitments made by Kyoto Agreement Member States. They are voluntary, non-binding measures. They should not help reduce emissions. The European states remain convinced that global warming is a major issue for future generations. As such, it requires governments to take drastic and politically difficult measures because they challenge, in part, our way of life and our consumer culture. Yet they are necessary if we are to avoid an irreversible degradation of our environment.

Biotechnologies : This is a very complex case in which the trade issues are compounded by technological, cultural and political issues. France, like many European countries, is particularly sensitive to food safety and in a more general way to public health. The “mad cow” crisis and then foot-and-mouth disease hurt farming interests badly and have had a lasting effect on consumer habits. Consequently, there will be no short-cuts in the debate over the principle of precaution, especially in the case of GMOs. What’s taking place here is not knee-jerk protectionism, as some people would like to think, but genuine apprehension in the minds of the public about the long-term consequences of consuming such products. These concerns also have political overtones, especially in France ; some movements have already made these issues their rallying cry. So we have to give ourselves time to consider all the aspects, refrain from making hasty judgments and avoid caricaturing the positions of our partners.

In a general way, I believe that there is where we come up against profound differences in culture and ideology that it would be dangerous to reduce solely to their trade dimensions. In a nutshell, while the U.S. is pleading for free market and individual initiative, Europe remains committed to the regulatory function of government and to our concept of solidarity, reluctant to accept any exposure to risk (that’s the underlying reason for the famous “principle of precaution”). This difference in attitude, which goes to the core of our mindsets, culture and history, must be accepted in all its complexity, and we must resist the temptation to cast all the blame one way, resulting in atavistic protectionism for some, and unbridled free trade for the others.

3/ A few remarks to conclude on some of our political and diplomatic differences. These have become more shrill with the now famous “axis of evil” expression used by President Bush in his State of the Union speech. Beyond these words European reactions betrayed a real concern that the United States would give in to the unilateralist temptations naturally made possible by its military superiority. These reactions expressed also as a real desire to air different readings of certain international crises. That is the case with the Mideast which is naturally our main subject of concern, not only because the situation is tragic, but also because clashes between Israelis and Palestinians are endangering regional stability, and their effects are being felt as far away as France.

In this regard, I want to say in no uncertain terms that recent anti-jewish incidents in France are absolutely intolerable and must be duly punished. Our President and Prime Minister have condemned them in the strongest possible language and have taken strong police measures. As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, our analyses of its causes and our proposals for resolving it differ significantly from those of the United States. We believe that the situation cannot be analyzed through the exclusive prism of the fight against terrorism. For quite some time now, the French authorities have been calling on the United States to re-commit itself in the Middle East in order to promote a peace plan acceptable to both parties, to walk a more balanced line between Mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat, and to transcend a strictly security-based reading of the situation.

From this standpoint, President Bush’s recent speech marks a turning point. His warning to the two parties is clear : No one can hope to impose his views by force. The decision to send Mr. Powell to the Mideast demonstrates America’s will to find a solution to a “bloody impasse”. Security Council resolution 1402, the Tenett-Mitchell plan and Prince Abdullah’s proposals lay down the outlines of a solution. Together we must strive to stop the endless spiral of violence and allow the Israelis and Palestinians to finally live in peace. France for its part will spare no effort in the quest for a just and lasting peace.

Are these differing assessments harmful to the transatlantic relationship? No, not if we don’t let them degenerate. To the contrary, they are natural (the United States’ European allies are happy to be supportive but not obedient). There always will be differences between us. Perhaps there will be even more of them as the European Union asserts itself politically and militarily. But that evolution shouldn’t be overdramatized.

III/ French-American relations could be further improved.

We should work harder to eliminate misunderstandings. There are three things we could do.

1/ We should place more stress on the things that bring us together rather than on those that divide us, and continually recall the essential values that underlie our privileged relationship. Indeed, we have long shared:

- Common values: We share the same political philosophy, which can be boiled down to a few fundamental notions: the rule of law, democracy, the protection of minorities and a market economy. This cultural proximity is rooted in Enlightenment philosophy. Thus we have two centuries of history in common. And our democratic ideals are all the more precious in that they are fragile. The attacks of September 11 demonstrated that not everybody shares the principles of freedom, which must be defended by force if necessary.

- Common security concerns : We also have the security of our territories and of our people in common. NATO is the most striking expression of these military ties. The Washington treaty constitutes the only defensive alliance ever entered into by the United States in peacetime. Here too, the attacks of September 11 underscored the closeness of transatlantic relations, with article 5 invoked for the very first time.

- Common interests : We share the same economic and financial interests. Indeed, we have achieved such a remarkable degree of interdependence that a trade war would be virtually suicidal. It is in our clear interest to resolve disputes, which represent a mere 2 to 3 percent of the sum total of our bilateral exchanges. Furthermore, the United States and the European Community alone represent 40 percent of the world GDP. The weight of these two trading partners gives them particular responsibilities in the international financial and trading systems. In other words, we are competitors, but mostly partners.

2/ We should continually reassert our desire for dialogue and coordination. As special as it is, our relationship should never be taken for granted. It deserves attention. It should be nurtured by joint projects. It can grow only through regular meetings at every level and genuine consultations on issues of common concern. From this standpoint, President Bush’s visit to Europe (including Paris) next month seems particularly welcome. His visit should help dissipate the malaise generated in Europe by his State of the Union speech and the now famous “axis of evil” expression and more generally by the feeling now prevalent in Europe that the US, at the peak of their power, are tempted to go it alone, to act unilaterally. At the time, European reactions betrayed a real concern—that of seeing the U.S. give in to the unilateralist temptations naturally made possible by its military superiority. By virtue of its very power, the United States bears special responsibility. This is an objective fact that is hard to escape. We are ready to help share burdens and share responsibilities. But we can do that only if we are consulted and involved in the decision-making process. Together there is nothing we cannot achieve. Separately, we are vulnerable to bitter failures. The objective is to move from “leadership in partnership to partnership in leadership.”

3/ We mustn’t overdramatize our differences. I believe they are inevitable, if not salutary, and should always be kept in perspective. They enable us to communicate frankly about difficult subjects. But it’s in everyone’s clear interest not to let them degenerate. Multilateral organizations (and first and foremost, the WTO and the UN) offer the appropriate context for ironing out our disputes and defining common approaches. The transatlantic partnership offers additional opportunities for discussion.

In conclusion, I would say that the attacks of September 11 helped make us more aware of the essential nature and the closeness of the ties that bind us. France, faithful to its traditions, extended its full support to the United States and will continue to support it in the merciless struggle against terrorist networks as well as advising it, if needed, against dangerous temptations and risky adventures. In so doing, France will remain true to itself : a staunch ally, with a strong individuality. We will, as always, express our views, offer our interpretations, sometimes differ in our judgements. In so doing, we will be, as always, a true friend. We share the same cause, and we share the effort. America once again, and maybe more than ever, can count on France./.