Today's Date:

(…)

I came from New York to Washington four months ago exactly today but it seems to me that it was four years. The Iraqi crisis followed me from New York to Washington. The war has started…we have differences of views on this war, but as the war has started, I want to say from the bottom of my heart, and in the name of France, that I present my condolences to all the families of those who have lost their lives in this war and I want to add that France hopes that this war will be victorious, which it will be, and that it is so as expeditiously as possible, and with as limited losses of life as possible. We are friends and allies, yes indeed, and I want to start with a few words about this quite special relationship that we have maintained from the very early days of your independence when French officers and soldiers were side by side with the American insurgence during their fight for the independence of the United States of America. You saved us twice in the last century and the French people will never forget. We will never forget. You wanted us to be free, we are free and as free people we express our views and sometimes we disagree.

But we consider that a true friend should speak his mind and say what we think is right and what we think is wrong. And it’s true, professor, that we express our view sometimes in a visible way, I would say, which may attract the attention of the press. Maybe a softer way to say things would be better from time to time. But I think it’s important in the world as it is today that the US finds in France not only a real friend, a true friend and an ally, but also a country which expresses its views when we feel necessary. And let me say one word about the reactions on both sides of the Atlantic. I think it’s most unfortunate that this dialogue from time to time turns into French bashing of the United States and anti-Americanism in France. In the United States, you have a lively debate about the war, as it is the rule in a great democracy, and this lively debate is a respectful debate. And my hope is that these sensitivities will not turn into a kind of confrontation between two friends, but will turn to be a friendly debate between two allies.

I say this not only in my capacity as Ambassador of France, but also as a man who has an immense respect and admiration for the American people, for the great democracy of America. And my duty as French Ambassador is, first things first, to explain to the French people what are the differences in perception. I always say to the French audiences, to the French media, that in my view, today there are two differences, not only between the US and France, but beyond - between the United States and European countries. The first difference is about 9/11. I was the Ambassador of France to the United Nations and I saw from my office the destruction of the Twin Towers. So I feel in my heart and for the rest of my life what the Americans felt: the huge shock of these attacks in the heart of the city which is the symbol of American success, the symbol of New York – the Twin Towers. In Europe, in France, we understand this in a more abstract way because we were not directly involved. Islamist terror for us is quite familiar. We were confronted with Islamist terror in the 80’s and the mid 90’s. In our streets, we had a lot of terrorist attacks, but it has remained a kind of low intensity war. This why we have some difficulties in France, in Europe, to understand that America is at war, at war against Islamic terror. And it’s a real war. That’s the first difference, it seems to me, between the United States and Europe.

The second difference is about sovereignty. You are studying European affairs and you understand that we are engaged in Europe in something which is unique in our history. We’ve been united as Europeans many times. But at each occasion, starting with the Roman Empire, it was through military might. It was through military occupation by the Romans, Barbarians, Napoleon, Hitler etc. We have experienced war many times. It is a well-established tradition in Europe that we fight each other. And for the first time, drawing lessons from these bitter experiences of the past, we have decided after the second world war to build a common destiny so that never ever in Europe would you see war. How to make war impossible in a continent which has, over the centuries, experienced so many wars. That’s exactly the main purpose of the European Union. And we’ve been extraordinarily succesful. Extraordinarily. We have a unified market now and a unified currency, the Euro. For the first time since the Roman empire, we have a common currency. And we will continue this great adventure of the European construction.

This means that for each and every European citizen, sovereignty is something that we share. If you consider the same question of sovereignty from the American perspective, it’s completely different: sovereignty in this country is something that you protect. And I think that it’s very important to understand this difference of perception because it helps to explain our reactions to your decisions on the Kyoto Treaty, on the International Criminal Court, on a number of other Treaties. In this country, I would say, multilateralism is not very popular, constraints on your sovereignty are not very popular. If you are a European living day after day in shared sovereignty, this US reaction is a bit odd for the very reason that sovereignty is something we share. If we share it at the European level, why shouldn’t we share it at the level of the world? So these are, in my view, the two main differences which exist today between our two continents.

I read in the press that this Iraqi crisis is destroying all the international institutions : NATO, the EU, the UN. I don’t share in this pessimistic approach. I learned a lesson in New York, two words : think positive. So let us think positive about the futur of our world and let me start with our transatlantic relations.

First, a few figures : You have to know that between the European Union and the United States, each day 3 billion dollars of goods and services investments are exchanged. 3 billion dollars a day! Economically speaking, we are integrated. Of course, we can do better, and we will do better, but basically, it’s already done. And it’s done in the most extraordinary way – through subsidiaries of big companies. The American companies have invested heavily in the European Union as a unified market, and they sell their goods directly in Europe. And we are doing, as Europeans, the same in the United States. I say that because I read here and there that companies could be victims of boycott. It’s meaningless. Meaningless. You see, this glass of water is a glass of Evian. This is a French water, a delicious one. It’s good for your health. You have to know that it is distributed throughout the United States by Coca Cola. That’s the integration of our economies, just to give you an example. Together, the United States and the European Union represent 62% of the world's GDP. This means that if we can act together, everything is possible. If we are divided, nothing is possible. It’s as simple as that. We have to work together. Because another figure should remain in our minds : together we represent only 11% of the world population. 5% for the United States and 6% for the European Union before its enlargement in two weeks. It means that we represent the most extroardinary economic force in the world and yet our leading role is based on a limited population. We have to work together. We represent the two pillars of world democracy, the two pillars of market economy. And on these two pillars, we can lead the world. We can solve the problems, not only the challenge of terrorism, but also the challenges of the world economy, the challenges of the world environment, the challenges of diseases, AIDS, so on and so forth. And keeping this in mind, you can put in perspective our difference on Iraq.

NATO

Now it’s true to say that we have to do better in term of trans-atlantic dialogue. We have two tools for this trans-altantic dialogue: NATO and the EU-US summits. NATO is slowly being transformed. In Prague, during the last summit in autumn, we engaged this transformation of NATO to adapt NATO to the new situation. Our common enemy, the Soviet Union, has disappeared, and we face new challenges, namely terrorism. We have to adapt NATO. NATO cannot be, in my view, but it’s also the European view, a toolbox. The Europeans cannot be considered as tools, even if they are good tools. We have to build a partnership. We have to build a partnership not between equals, because militarily speaking we are not equals, but between partners sharing views about the goals we have to achieve together and the best ways to proceed. And I’m quite optimistic on the possibility of achieving this goal.

The other dialogue is between the European Union and the United States. And here we have a little problem: I participated during my years with President Chirac in EU-US summits, and a number of other European summits. It’s quite extraordinary to see how boring these summits are: we discuss the little problems. We focus on bananas, for example. How can we buy bananas cheaper, do we help American companies to export better bananas, and so on. I could give you a long list of these small problems which literally invade the agenda. In my view, we have to put aside and delegate to the ministries these little problems and focus on the global pictures, on the main issues of the day : how to fight terror together, how we can build a better world... These are the issues that should be discussed at the level of the head of states and government.

EU

Now the second crisis is the European one, and you will see how it can help to solve the issue I have just mentioned of these summits between the EU and the US. The European Union is divided on Iraq. But it is unified, if you look at the population. It is quite extraordinary to see that north to south, east to west, the European Union population is of one view on this Iraqi problem. This is an indication of the integration of European minds. How can't we, despite this united view of our populations, have a united view between the governments?

First, as I have said, economically speaking, even though we have little problems, unification is complete. Monetary union is there, common currency is there. So our main problem is foreign policy and defense. This is because we come from different histories, traditions, and horizons, and this creates difficulties. Nonetheless, we are determined to do better. And the next step in terms of integration of the European Union will be our constitution. We are today where you were in Philadelphia in 1787. And President Giscard D’Estaing, who is leading the convention, came to the United States, to Washington to explain what we have in mind. I will not go into details, but I will mention two things : First, we want to have a president of the European Union, that is, a president of the European Council, to replace the current rotating presidency of the European Union. You know that every six months we change our president, and on the 16th of April, we will no longer be 15 members, but 25 with enlargement to 10 newcomers from Central and Eastern Europe, plus Malta and Cyprus. It means that if we had the rotating presidency of the European Union every six months, you would get the presidency only every twelve years. This system cannot work any longer. And we have an opportunity to change the system and have a real president of the European Council: the man or the woman who will be the voice and the face of the European Union, and who would participate in this US-EU summits with the possibility to lead the European Union for probably five years. Nothing has been decided – it’s a proprosal, but this is the idea. If you have this one voice and this one face representing the European Union in the International Conferences and so on, then I think that the perception in our countries and abroad will change quite dramatically.

And the second thing I want to mention along with all of the changes which are considered by the convention right now, is the idea to have a real foreign minister of the European Union. We already have Javier Solona and Chris Patten, one for the council and one for the commission. The idea is to merge the two, in a way. I will not go into the details because the details are quite tricky to organize, but basically what we want to do is merge the two responsabilities into one portfolio with one man or one woman in charge of the foreign policy. This man or woman would chair the council of the foreign ministers, would have a small administration to help him or her, and so, continuity would again be established, not just with the President of the European Council, but also with the Foreign Minister. So if we can make it, you see immediately that we will be in a better position to go beyond our historical differences and slowly build a common position.

Basically we don’t have difficulties to agree among members of the European Union, when we agree also with the United States. Let me give you one example : In the Balkans, we have a wonderful cooperation between the United States and the European Union. And slowly, the European Union is taking over NATO, or the US presence, but in a way which is a direct convergence of minds and efforts. It’s a perfect example of what we can achieve together. We are bringing peace, security,  law and order, and economic developement to all the countries of the Balkan region, together. When we disagree with the United States, as it appeared on Iraq, then you have a split inside the European Union. So the recipe is quite obvious : let’s agree with the United States.

Is it always possible? Why not? Why not! For that, we need two things. First, the more intense title, and second, a better balance. What do I mean by that? Robert Kagan said in a famous essay, that the US is from Mars and France is from Venus. What he had in mind is that you have the military might and we don’t. In this new century, I personally consider that you need both hard and soft power and I would suggest respectfully that there would be a better trans-atlantic relation if in addition to the American hard power in Europe, there was a little more American soft power. And consequently, if in addition to the European soft power, there was a lot more hard power. Europe must do more and better for its own defense without the NATO framework. We can do more, we have to do more. And the two countries which are most engaged in this great ambition are the United Kingdom and France. And we will continue because we all agree in Europe that yes, we must do more, and better.

UN

Now, the last crisis is about the UN and the relations between the US and the UN. And again, I am quite optimistic. I am quite optimistic because the UN desperately needs involvement of the US in the United Nations. But it seems to me that at the same time, the US needs the UN. Let me give you one or two examples : in Afghanistan, you have American forces engaging the forces against Al-Qaeda and the Talibans. This war is not over. You have the European forces in Kabul, and then you have the UN in charge of the rest - that is, rebuilding the economy of a country that has been destroyed by one generation of war, rebuilding the society, rebuilding the state structures. And if the UN was not there, who would take over these daunting tasks? Same thing elsewhere: Kosovo, Timor, Africa. As an Ambassador to the Security Council, I led missions of the Security Council in the Great Lakes Region three times. Nobody cares about these African countries, these African crisis. Nobody but the UN. And if the UN didn’t exist, it would be a disaster for Africa. With the UN involvement, we have a possibility, slowly, to work with the African countries, with the regional structures, to help them, to solve their crisis. So, yes, the UN needs the US, but yes also, the US needs the UN and we have to work together.

Is it impossible? Of course not. Even with respect to Iraq. A few days ago, on March 28, we adopted the Oil for Food resolution to send through the UN channels, as soon as the war will be over, all the humanitarian aid which will be necessary for the Iraqi people. And that was a concensus resolution adopted 15 against 0. Let’s try to do and achieve the same thing for the reconstruction of Iraq. I personally consider, and that’s the view of all the European countries, that the UN should play a central role in this. It’s too early to decide how or when. This is a sensitive issue. My only recommendation as alway is: think positive, be pragmatic, be flexible, and there, we’ll be together.

Thank you very much.