Today's Date:

Washington , March , 2004

Thank you very much for this kind introduction. And thank you very much for your presence. Yes, I come as a neighbor, and maybe I should invite you to join us from time to time on the other side of Reservoir Road. What I'd like to do tonight is to share with you my personal experience during these challenging years both in New York as the French Ambassador to the United Nations from 2000 to 2002, then since last year, well 15 months now as the French Ambassador to the United States in Washington. And maybe I should start with a personal experience : 9/11.

[IRAQ] On 9/11, I was in my office in New York on the 34 th floor of a building with a wonderful view of downtown, and I saw, from my office, the destruction of the Twin Towers. And of course this will remain in my heart for the rest of my days. On that day, I was an American. And the whole world, we acted as if we were all Americans. This was the title of the French main daily, Le Monde , the following day : « We Are All Americans. » And President Chirac was the first Head of State to come to Washington and New York to express French solidarity with the American people, and also to discuss with President Bush how we would react together. Then he came to New York to meet the mayor, M. Giuliani, visit the site of the tragedy, and express our solidarity with the New Yorkers. During that month of September, I was the President of the Security Council of the United Nations. We couldn't join anybody on the phone, we couldn't reach Paris and get instructions, so we had to rely on our own imagination to think of what could be the reaction of the United Nations to such a tragedy. And we thought that our duty was to change International Law on two important aspects : we proposed to our Security Council partners first to decide that such an act of International Terrorism as the one which occurred on 9/11 should be considered as an act of war. Which means, according to the United Nations charter that the State, under such an aggression, has the right of self-defense. The second we proposed, again for the first time, to decide that this self-defense should be targeted not only against those who committed these attacks, that is the terrorist network, but also against States which offered hospitality, trade, equipped, financed the terrorist network.

This resolution was proposed to our colleagues in the Security Council the very moment the doors of the United Nations building were re-opened, that is in the morning on the following day, the 12 th of September. The text was adopted one hour later unanimously ; it shows that the U.N. Security Council can take bold initiatives and react promptly and unanimously. And I proposed to my colleagues for the first time in U.N. history that we would adopt this Resolution not by raising our hands as we always do, but by standing in order to express our respect and solidarity to the American people. This Resolution paved the way to the war in Afghanistan and for this war we were all together and we were in the Security Council. France participated fully with the war with 5,000 troops, the air-craft carrier Charles de Gaulle and 100 planes. And we still maintain today hundreds of troops in Kabul. It is now a NATO operation, an operation led by the Atlantic Alliance in Kabul and Iraq and the French general will be leaving this operation next Sunday. But we have also special forces fighting with yours on the border with Pakistan and, as you know, on the other side of the border there are Pakistani troops and we are firm to get the last elements of Al-Qeada and the Taliban in this region. So, you see that in this war against Terrorists, right from the beginning, that is after 9/11, we were together and still are together.

So, what happened with Iraq? How come we were and are together in Afghanistan and have such a disagreement, such a difference of views about Iraq? It started well. It started on the 12 th of September, 2002 when President Bush came to the United Nations General Assembly in New York and, in a very powerful speech said, « We have to disarm Saddam Hussein. Let's do it together. If possible, peacefully with the U.N Inspections and if not, with a use of force. » And we were unanimous with our applause, we were unanimous in supporting that goal. So far, so good. Then we started immediately to negotiate the Resolution 1441 which transferred into action the speech of President Bush. After eight weeks of talk with good positive negotiation, the Resolution was adopted unanimously. And soon after, U.N. inspectors were sent out to Baghdad, immediately deployed all over Iraq to start their work. And they did a good job. It was not new for them. As you know, between 1991 and 1998 they destroyed more arms of mass destruction in Iraq than the first « desert war » itself. In 2002, they were returning to Iraq after 4 years. They reassessed the situation, they monitored the programs, they ordered the destruction of missiles. Maybe you have seen on your screens, on your tv programs these destructions by the Iraqi Army of these missiles at the request of the U.N. inspectors.

But at that moment started the difficulty. In parallel with the U.N. inspections, the Army, the U.S. Army was deployed around Iraq. It was an acceptable idea because it was the way to send a powerful message to Saddam Hussein : either you cooperate fully, or the use of force will be implemented as it was said in the U.N. Resolution. But, 50,000 troops would have been enough to send this powerful message to Saddam Hussein and the fact is that he did cooperate more and more with the U.N. Inspections. The more talk you have, the more he must cooperate. But 300,000 troops were deployed, as many as needed to fight and win the war. And there we have the difficulty. When all the troops were deployed, at the end of February last year, at the Security Council, a majority of 11 out of its 15 members considered that it was necessary to continue the U.N. Inspections because they were providing slowly more and more information about the programs of Saddam Hussein. The idea was : why should we stop something which is providing results? But on the other side, the U.S., UK, and Spain considered that, No, it was time to stop it and to use force. That is, to launch the war. After the debate came the war.

Now it is behind us. And today, we are you and us, confronted with a situation which requires full cooperation, because what is at stake today in Iraq is huge – not only the future of the Iraqi people, not only the future of the Middle East, but for me the future of the relations between the Muslim World, and the West. That is what is at stake in Iraq today. And because it is so important we will be together, France is ready to work hand in hand with the international community, the U.N., and of course the U.S., the U.K., to make Iraq a success story. Just consider one second what will be your situation and our situation if Iraq is not a success. If Iraq became a State like Afghanistan of three years ago, with the kind of Taliban regime in Baghdad and Al-Qaeda at home in Iraq, you and us would be in danger even more than we were on the eve of 9/11. So now, we have to be together. We may have had different views about this war. We still consider that this war was not necessary, that there was no imminent threat against your security, our security, that there were no stocks of arms of mass destrution, that there was no link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. This is past. Now, let's work together to make Iraq a success story.

[EUROPE] Now, I'd like to say a few words about Europe. I think it is very important that you understand what we want to acheive with the European Union, because from time to time I read in a number of papers on this side of the Atlantic that France and Germany together want to build Europe as a kind of counterweight to American power. This is not what we want to achieve in Europe. We thought that the great condition of building a common destiny in Europe peacefully, drawing on the lessons of two World Wars, which were triggered by hatred between the Germans and the French. And building on the bigger lessons of these past of wars, blood, hatred, we have decided fifty years ago for the first time in history to build, peacefully, a common destiny. We have been united in the past, but always by force. We were united with the Roman Empire when the Roman legions unified Europe. We were unified by Napoleon, but again by the use of force. And by Hitler by the use of force. For the first time in history, the Europeans want to build their common destiny peacefully. It is a kind of miracle. We started very modestly by putting together our steel and coal industries. Why? Because you build guns with steel and coal. Then we continued by putting together our nuclear industries, because you can build nuclear bombs. Then we decided to build a common market. And during all these years we were slowly expanding from six to nine, ten, twelve, fifteen, and in May of this year, we will have another miracle : we will welcome ten newcomers.

This time it is a real miracle, because only fifteen years ago all of them were on the other side of the Iron Curtain. If you consider these announcements from a European prospective, yes indeed it is a miracle. And we try today to achieve another miracle. Building on the common market, we have adopted the Euro. Not to compete with the dollar, but simply because when you have a common market you need a common currency. Just consider for one second what would be your situation in the United States if you had one currency for Texas, one for the mid-western states and one for California. It wouldn't work. Now we have the Euro. It's a miracle, but, we discovered that beyond this economic integration we needed better institutions, because up to now we live by the institutions that were adopted fifty years ago when we were only six. And you cannot have the same institutions when you are twenty-five. So we decided to try to adopt a constitution.

We are not where you were in Philadelphia in 1787. You started from scratch with only one language, English, and a common vision, the future, the philosophy of the Enlightenment. We start with 2,000 years of History behind us. As Donald Rumsfeld said one day, « We are old Europe ». These 2,000 years of History is made of confrontation, wars, between the Frenchs and the Germans, the Frenchs and the Brits, the Frenchs and the Spaniards, the Spaniards and the Portugese, the Italians and the Germans, and so on and so forth. We have different legal traditions – constitutional inheritances. The UK has no constitution at all, but there are some twenty national constitutions to be considered. Nonetheless, with that figure, through a European Convention where representatives of the twenty-five countries have been working together, we'll do our best to adopt this text in the coming months. Then maybe you will understand a little better how it works, as a lot of Europeans will, because, frankly, sometimes, it is difficult to understand how our institutions work. This constitution will help us because it will replace the different treaties which are thick like that. For instance, you will have the President of the European Council, that is the President for Europe, for five years. So you will see a face and hear a voice representing the European Union. You will not have to ask : Who's this guy? Who's in charge? We want to have more leadership, not only through a President, but also with the help of a real Foreign Minister of the European Union.

Let me conclude on Europe on this note : In my view, we are your indispensable partner, but we are your invisible partner. France is quite visible, maybe too much. Germany is very visible. The UK is of course very visible, Italy, Spain but the Europe Union as such is quite invisible. And that's why I think that it is important for you to learn a little more, not only about France and the French language (I thank you for that), but also about the Euro. Where do the troops which are deployed now in the Balkans, in Iraq, in Afghanistan come from? Not from China, or from Russia, or from Mexico, from Brazil, from Argentina. But from Europe. We are your partners, your key partners. And if you look in terms of economy, it's even more important. Two-thirds of the foreign direct investment in the United States comes from Europe. This represents 4 million American jobs. Our economies are really inter-dependent.

I'd like to conclude with a few words about our relations. The French-American relations went through a kind of diplomatic hurricane last year. But our friendship survived. And I think now, one year later, it is important to assess the situation. I discussed Iraq, and tried to explain why we had this difference, but if you look beyond Iraq, you see only reasons to celebrate our cooperation. I mentioned Afghanistan which is a perfect example of perfect cooperation. But I should also add the Balkans, Kosovo, and Bosnia, where our troops are fighting side by side to maintain peace. Helping this Balkan region to develop a free market economy. If you look beyond what do you see? A shared concern right from the beginning. We worked together at Yorktown, and during all of your wars for Independence. Not only with Lafayette and Rochambeau, but at Yorktown, you had as many French troops as you had American troops. For fifteen million dollars, you got all the land West of the Mississippi, that is thirteen states, thanks to the treaty signed between Napoleon and Jefferson. The United States saved France twice last century. At the end of the first World War and of course at the end of the second World War. This year, on the 6 th of June, we will commemmorate in a very moving and solemn way the 60 th Anniversary of D-Day. And believe me, it will be a very moving moment. President Bush will come to Paris on the 5 th of June to have a meeting with President Chirac, and then the two presidents will be together on the Normandy beaches with a number of American Veterans. We express our views from time to time in a very candid way. You wanted France to be a free country. And as a free country, we say what we think. We are the family of world democracy. Most of the time, we do agree. From time to time, we disagree. And it seems to me that the duty of a true friend is to speak his mind and say when he disagrees with his friend, « Maybe you are wrong, let's talk about it ». It doesn't mean that we are not friends anymore. We are forever, and will remain forever, true friends and allies. It doesn't mean that we have forgotten what you have done for us, and believe me, on the sixth of June, you will hear from all over France, in one word, « Thank you, America, we will never forget. » I thank you.

Question : I have a question about the recent law that was passed in France about wearing religious attire in public schools. Do you think in honesty that forcing Muslim girls to leave public schools will improve relations between the Muslim world and the Western world by (the news reports that I've heard from France on France 2) having them go to private schools? And do you think this new law will keep France and America safer?

It is a very important question, and I'm very glad that you ask this question. We have very different traditions. You are and we are two great democracies, and our histories have evolved in different ways. And so let me explain why we have adopted a law, not about the veil, but about religion at school. We are, as I said, an old country. And we were at war not only with our neighbors, but we had religious wars at home in France for centuries. Not with Muslims, but between Catholics and Protestants. And these wars led to massacres. The official religion was the religion of the king. The king was Catholic, so the religion of the kingdom was Catholicism. We changed with the French Revolution as you said, 1789. During the French Revolution not only we abolished monarchy, created a Republic, but also adopted the note of this Republic : liberté, equalité, fraternité.

The key word here is equality. For the first time in Europe, all citizens living in France were considered equals : same rights for the Catholics, for the Protestants, and the Jews. At that time there were no Muslims living in France. But it took one more century of difficulties to implement this principle into a law for schools. This law was adopted in 1905 and the basic decision says that there should be no religion in our public schools. This is a private matter. And this law has been implemented without difficulty for nearly one century. Slowly our Muslim population increased. We now have between five and six million Muslims, that is around 8 or 9 percent of our population. And we had recently some 2,000 girls who wanted to go to public schools with the veil. Beyond that question of the time which is always quoted, there were other problems. Parents of these 2,000 girls wanted to have separate classes for boys and girls because of religion. For us the word « equality » also means gender equality. Parents wanted also no gym for their girls. If they were sick, some parents wanted only female doctors for their daughters and so on and so forth. Professors asked the question to the government : What should we do, what is the rule in this matter ? Should we change the basis of the French Republic principles adopted during our Revolution.

Because this is a very sensitive issue, President Chirac and the government decided that a commission composed of experts in education think about the question and propose solutions ; representatives of all faiths were also consulted : Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims. Unanimously this commission recommended not to change the law, but to reaffirm our law of 1905 which says basically « no conspicious religious signs in public school. » Now, is it as you say the problem in our relations with the Muslim community and, beyond, with Muslim states? I don't think so. You have to understand that our public schools represent only 60% of all children. 40% go to private school, where, in addition to national programs, they can get either religious programs, or music, or gymnastic, or whatever. And because democracy is freedom of choice, the State finances these private schools to the point that on average it only costs around 500 dollars a year to have a child in a private school. So what is important for you to understand is yes, we unanimously wanted to reaffirm the basis of the French secular system, but at the same time we made sure that each parent would have a choice for each child either to go to public or private school. I hope that now you understand better why this law was adopted by 90% of the votes in our National Assembly and in our Senate with the support of all religious organizations.