Today's Date:

Dear Friends,

I’m delighted to be with you tonight in Chicago, Chicago the sister city of Paris, the world capital for architecture and design. A unique combination of elegance and strength. Thank you for your kind invitation, President Marshall Bouton, and thank you, Ambassador Bindenagel, for your role in organizing this wonderful meeting. Thanks also to Shirley Ryan for this very generous introduction, I feel very old listening to you. You mentioned the French-American friendship, which started here even before we stood side by side in the early days of your fight for independence.And you saved us twice in the last century. We will never forget it.

But today, I’m invited not to speak about the French-American relations but about a very interesting question: America as Empire, question mark. I think the question mark is very appropriate and I’ll try to offer not the French perspective but my personal judgement.

As Shirley mentioned, I was the French Ambassador to the UN before being transferred to Washington. Just before my leaving Kofi Annan offered the traditional farewell dinner and of course the US Ambassador was there. When the time came for the traditional toast, I said that I was looking with anticipation to my transfer from my first Holy See of multilateralism to the Rome of today’s world. After dinner, John Negroponte, the US Ambassador came to me and said, you must be careful Jean-David, don’t say that too much, we don’t like to be painted as the Rome of today’s world, we don’t like to be considered as an empire.

Well, what is the situation ? Are we in this globalized world under an American empire encompassing the whole world, or are we, as seen at the beginning of a kind of American empire in the Middle East. I’ll try to provide elements of answers to these two questions.

And first, do we see now the kind of American empire without borders, an empire build without barriers. Is the whole world becoming an American empire ?

Well, if we look at the starting point of the world we now live in, it obviously is the date of 1991 which we must have in mind. At that moment the Soviet empire collapsed and the United States became the only dominant power in the world.

The figures are very impressive. Militarily speaking, you represent 36% of the whole world’s spending in military terms and you have to combine the spending of the 25 next countries on the list to get the same amount of money that you put in your defense. The US dominance is even more impressive if you look at the figures in terms of the armament industry. Your armament industry represents 60% of the total amount of money spent in armament industries throughout in the world. And it‘s even more impressive when you look military R&D: there, you represent 65% of the world total.

The figures are also very impressive when you look at technology. The US represents 80% of the world market of software. 40% of the patents in the world are registered in the United States. 40% of the world research and development is American.

English language is the official language or a language with a special status in 75 countries all around the world, and one third of the world population now speaks or understands English. In cultural terms, your movies account for 85% of the world audience.

So a dominant power, yes, certainly.

Does it mean nonetheless that this dominant power is building or becoming an empire ? Does globalization mean americanization ?

Well, since the collapse of the Soviet empire not only we have seen the end of the bipolar world but we have also seen the spread all over the world of our common values, democracy, freedom, market economy, in Russia, in Eastern Europe, but also in Latin America and slowly elsewhere, in Southeast Asia and so on.

So yes the dominant power. Your model, our model, is becoming the only model, the only reference for development, democracy and market economy. I don’t see anymore any other model.

Does it mean that it is an American empire? I’m not so sure for two reasons.

First if you look at the economic perspective then you discover a more nuanced reality. Let’s think of China for a few minutes. China is also benefiting heavily from the movement of globalization. Its industrial growth has been 12% per year for more than ten years. Now the Chinese are the number one in the world for coal, steel industries, textile industry. Even more impressive, they represent today as we speak 50% of the world’s production of TV sets, 40% for telephones, radios and 25% for computers. China has a trade surplus with the United States over 100 billion dollars a year. So you may consider that after all China too is emerging as an economic powerhouse with the ambition to lead.

And if you look at the European Union, well, we’ve been quite successful also in economic terms. Roughly speaking, we represent the same economic weight as the United States. Over fifty years, we organized ourselves into a unified market and now we have in our pockets the Euro, our common currency. And we are adopting our own rules to organize ourselves to the point that when two big American companies want to merge they need the get the approval of your competent authorities but also the green light from the European Commission. From time to time, in this country, it is a yes and in Europe it is a no. The perfect example is the failed marriage between GE and Honeywell which was rejected by the European Commission, a decision which was accepted by the two companies.

So you see, in economic terms, I would say that the realities of the world are a bit more nuanced than we could think at first sight.

When you look at the political perspective, there again, I think we should be a bit nuanced. First because you don’t become an empire if you don’t want to be an empire and what is amazing in this country is that there is a strong feeling that the U.S. should not become an empire. President Bush in November said, and I quote, “America has no territorial ambitions, we don’t seek an empire, our nation is committed to freedom for ourselves and for others” end of quote. And when you look at the polls it’s quite clear that a huge majority in this country has little taste for empire, to say the least. It’s not in your tradition and it’s not the will of the American people. Empire suggests downfall for the Americans. There is no will here to control the world. Neither the public nor Congress has proved willing to invest heavily in the nation building. The entire budget of the State Department and the Agency for International Development, AID, represents not more than 1% of the federal budget. Of course, you invest much more for your Defense Department, 16 times more, but this is to prepare your troops to fight, not to maintain law and order throughout the world.

So all in all, at the dawn of this new century, I would adopt the reasoning of professor Joe Nye when he says that we should consider power as distributed differently on different issues. On military issues the world is unipolar and I would add it will remain so. The European Union is not willing to compete, we simply want to organize ourselves in a better way so that when we need to solve a crisis at our doors like in Bosnia or in Kosovo, we may be in a position to do it by ourselves. We need to organize better our defense system, our troops, we need to be spending a little more money for that, and to have a political will, but certainly we don’t want to compete with the United States. Second, on economic issues, as I said, I think Joe Nye is right when he says the world is already multipolar. You have the U.S., you have the E.U., you have emerging China, you have Japan and tomorrow probably you will have India and Brazil. And all this works in harmony. Of course, from time to time, we have different views about bananas or steel, but we have also W.T.O. to help us to solve these issues. So economically speaking the world is already multipolar and it works. And last but not least on transnational problems, like illegal migration, diseases, drugs, crimes, terrorism, climate change, what we need is multilateral institutions because we will provide answers to these global problems only through global actions. And for global action, we need the United Nations, we need W.H.O., we need all these institutions which are not perfect but which exist and provide help to solve the global problems, problems of today’s world. So all in all, I would say that for more than ten years since the Soviet empire collapsed, yes there is a dominant power, but there is not really a unipolar world or an American empire.

So, second question, maybe in the Middle East will we see an American empire ?

Here the defining moment has been of course 9/11. It was a huge shock. I was in my office. I saw the twin towers collapse from the windows of my office in New York, and I understand that America is today at war. It is a different war from all the wars of the past because the enemy is no a state, it’s a war without troops in front of you, it‘s war without stakes, it’s a war without borders, and nevertheless we have to fight and win this war. The U.S. decided that it had to act in Afghanistan and the whole world supported this war. But then you decided that you had to act in Irak and we were divided on this issue. You concluded also that to eradicate the scourge of terrorism, Al-Qaeda, it was necessary to transform the whole Middle East. Bill Kristol when he met you on the 13 of May explained the reasoning behind this logic which led from the disarmament of Iraq to regime change, and from regime change in Irak to the transformation of the whole Middle East. In 18 months only, you have fought two wars, won them brilliantly. It means in terms of shift of power for your troops a lot of transformation.

Now, you have roughly speaking 200,000 troops deployed outside the islamic world: 120,000 in Europe and in Asia, 35,000 in Japan and 45,000 in Korea. But in Islamic countries, you have now 300,000 troops deployed, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkestan, of course Iraq and top of all bases and facilities in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Turkey.

Now there is the temptation to draw a fascinating parallel between what was done by British and French troops in 1917 when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and I read that very interesting article about the parallel between the move to Baghdad by British troops and the move to Baghdad by American troops. Will this move transform the Middle East into an American empire ? Will you stay there for a long period ?

Two questions: first, do you want to stay for a long period ? I don’t think so, in my view the answer is no. President Bush has stated that the U.S. will stay not one day more than necessary. Second question, will it be possible for you to leave soon ? and again the answer is no. Fareed Zakaria, when he spoke hear on the 29 of April, was quite clear the U.S. engagement is a long term one because to build democracy in Iraq and in Afghanistan is a long term responsibility. And I would say if you were to leave soon, before the mission is accomplished it would be a disaster, a disaster for these two countries, Afghanistan, where the Taliban would come back, Iraq where a new dictator would emerge soon. It would be a disaster for the whole Middle East, and for the relations between the Islamic world and western countries. So, you will have to stay. Will this long time presence become an empire ?

Not necessarily, and that is your choice. And it’s fascinating to compare your choice for Afghanistan and in Iraq. In Iraq, you have now 160,000 troops. You have a direct rule with Paul Bremer in charge, and the U.N is confined in a secondary role. The perception inside and outside Iraq is of a direct rule by the United States over Iraq. And it seems to me that this situation, if it lasts, may trigger some risks. You and us, American and French, have had a bitter experience in Lebanon 20 years ago. I pray that you don’t find the same bitter experience in Iraq tomorrow.

In Afghanistan, the situation is completely different. You have chosen a different way. You have only 11,000 troops deployed, there is in and around Kabul a force which is mostly European, and you have also the troops of the Northern Alliance. But even more importantly you have the U.N. in the forefront. Even before the war was over, Lakhdar Brahimi was appointed as the special representative, he organized with your help and our help the Bonn-Petersberg conference to pave the way for an interim government. Then Lakhdar Brahimi and the U.N. organized with your help the Loya Jirga, and so it’s more perceived as a U.N. process even if we all know that the U.S. is playing a key role. I mention these differences because after all these were two American wars but in fact two different choices. And in terms of perception, it’s clear that the perception is today that in Afghanistan the U.N. is in charge, and that the whole international community is engaged into the huge ambition to help the Afghan people to build their country.

In Iraq, the risk is through this direct rule to have a different perception. And so I would like to conclude these brief remarks by a few personal recommendations from my experience in the U.N. and as a former diplomatic advisor of President Chirac. These recommendations come from a friend.

First, in Iraq, as you do in Afghanistan, maybe, maybe, it would be better to think more multilaterally, to think of a greater role for the U.N. To show to the Iraqi people that the whole world is involved in this common ambition of rebuilding Iraq, building democracy, freedom in this country. Of course, we all know that the U.S. has and will retain the leading role. All the same, the perception is important and if you put the U.N. in the forefront the perception would be different.

Resolution 1493, which was adopted unanimously a few weeks ago, is a step in that direction. Maybe it would be appropriate to think in the coming weeks or months of some more steps.

As to the transformation of the Middle East, it seems to me that the U.S. should be prepared for a lasting presence, a lasting engagement and it should organize itself for that. We need this engagement in the Middle East, and maybe, we need also a kind of strategic dialogue between the U.S., the countries in the Middle East, and the European partners because, after all, for Europe the Middle East is really our backyard. Mexico and Central America could be your backyard, the Middle East is probably our backyard. And so, if we have to think of the long term project to help the countries in the Middle East to transform, then maybe this is a matter for real common reflection and strategic dialogue. We have applauded the decision of President Bush to engage himself with great determination to give a boost to the peace process in the Middle East. We French are determined to do whatever possible to help him. We recognize fully that the United States has a leadership role to play and that the role of the other members of the Quartet is to help the U.S. to succeed.

Now, for global problems and the search of solutions, I would say quite candidly that for lasting results encourage is better than impose. Lead is better than rule.

We live in a dangerous world, we need the U.S. leadership. Consider your friends as true friends and partners and allies not servants. When there are differences, and there will be differences of views, dialogue is better to solve them than punishment. Consider the U.N. as a tool. The U.N. is the family of nations. It is not a kind of government above the government of the United States. You have a leading role to play also in the U.N. and I say that from my personal experience. When the U.S. adopt a positive approach to problems debated in the U.N. then it’s clear that the whole world is ready to follow and to help.

About the European Union, there is a debate and Bill Kristol, when he met you a few weeks ago, mentioned this question mark: what should we do about the European Union integration process ? This question should not exist. Right from the beginning the United States has helped the Europeans to build their common future. That’s what you wanted, that’s why you helped us with the Marshall plan. That’s what you did in the 60s, in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s. Let’s continue. I sincerely think that the integration of Europe is in your interest. I mentioned the economic integration of Europe, and I think that if you are an American company, it’s much better to invest in a unified Europe with one market, one currency, you save money.

And the same reasoning in my view is true for the European foreign policy and defense. Let’s look at the situation in Iraq. You are building a coalition of the willing and most of the partners are coming from Europe. Is it better to pick and choose here and there, or wouldn’t it be better to have a kind of organized European defense system ready to provide 30, 40, 50,000 troops in few weeks time ? In my view the answer is quite obvious. Of course, it would be much better not only for Europe but also for the United States to have in Europe a better organized defense system within the framework of NATO which is and will remain for the decades to come the cornerstone of our security.

In conclusion, I would say that from time to time your hard power will remain necessary. It was so after 9/11 and you were right to launch this necessary war in Afghanistan. But most of the time, most of the time, your soft power, will obtain the results we all want, more democracy, more development, and more peace in our world.

Thank you very much.