Today's Date:

EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION REFERENDUM

THE MINISTER – We shouldn’t hide the fact that we're going through a difficult patch. We can’t go on as if nothing had happened. We have to understand what the French wanted to express and what the Dutch on their side wanted to say. We’ve seen doubts and questions emerging in both countries, perhaps even a certain anxiety. We have to respond. As for the process of ratification, it isn’t for us to dictate the conduct of the other European countries which haven’t yet ratified it. Each member State must be able to conduct its process as it sees fit. Out of respect for the peoples who have already voted, let’s not tell them what to do. We need to consider the right way to move forward in this crisis.

This will be the purpose of the European Council on 16 and 17 June. The ratification process has obviously been destabilized by the two negative votes. Some are advocating going forward, others, like the British and Czechs, are calling for a pause, a period of reflection. France intends to take a constructive, responsible stance. One thing is certain, and President Chirac reaffirmed this to our partners the day after the referendum: the vote by the French people does not call into question France’s commitment to Europe; France, a founding country, will continue to play her full role, and will respect her commitments.

EU

THE MINISTER – Europe isn’t facing its first crisis. We’re paying for a lack of explanation. We failed to give people a sufficient understanding of enlargement. We didn’t stress enough that France is one of the leading exporters to Poland, that we’re one of the biggest investors in the ten new member countries and that this creates thousands of jobs in France. 29 May showed that there’s a real gap between Europeans and the European project. We have to reconcile them to prevent the risk of break-up. For there is a growing sense that Europe isn’t protecting its citizens enough from economic and social changes. This Europe is too remote from reality and from their concerns. Secondly, there’s a feeling that Europe, today, lacks direction: what are the real objectives the EU is pursuing? Where do Europe’s borders stop? What relations should we have with our neighbours?

BRUSSELS EU COUNCIL

THE MINISTER – To see the wishes of each State respected on the ratification process and account taken of the current malaise – it’s necessary. Time taken for joint reflection now so as to build better tomorrow. At the Council I think, speaking personally, that we’ll have to focus more on future-oriented research and innovation projects which should be carried out in an “enhanced cooperation” framework.

THE MINISTER – Once these situations are agreed to by those who want to go further and those who decide not to join them, there’s no difficulty. Rallying European countries around specific projects would make Europe more popular. These are projects which would be carried out by two, three or four countries or more. Europe must embrace concrete programmes if it is to be better understood by its citizens. Institutional reforms, even though they’re necessary, don’t fire anyone with enthusiasm. On the other hand, in the very practical area of research Europe must take up the challenges of bio- and nano-technology which will be one of the big fields in the twenty-first century. Enhanced cooperation in this area would prevent Europe from being left on the sidelines.

EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION/EUROPEAN FOREIGN MINISTER

THE MINISTER – We’ll see, but after a negative vote I don’t see how one could just cherry-pick bits of the Constitution. Once again, we’re not going to tell other member States what to do.

THE MINISTER – Humble, certainly, but not timorous. There has to be a new start, in a pragmatic way. Remember, that’s what was done after the rejection of the European defence community in 1954. The worst thing that could happen would be a spiral of failures which would call the European enterprise into question. Look at what’s happened in the past few days with respect to the euro. Let’s not rush to do the bidding of those calling the European idea into question. Europe, yesterday like today, has ensured stability at the heart of our continent. This is an awesome achievement which must be maintained and amplified.

FRANCO-GERMAN PILLAR

THE MINISTER – I made a point of making my first trip abroad to Germany because the partnership between our two countries retains its specificity. It is the product of history and geography. The Franco-German tandem remains a necessity for the future of Europe and for our two countries which are closely linked, especially at the economic level. Obviously, this doesn’t mean that in the EU25 it’s a closed club. We have to develop our dialogue with all those intent on moving forward, such as for example Spain and the Benelux countries. But without a clear understanding between Germany and France, the whole European entity is liable to miss its objectives.

EU BUDGET/BRITISH REBATE/CAP

THE MINISTER – No. I’ve never seen a European meeting where the ante wasn’t upped in the final week. In any case, we mustn’t add a budget crisis to the institutional crisis.

THE MINISTER – Today more than ever we’re doomed to compromise. The British have to take into consideration the circumstances in which they obtained their rebate in 1984. At the time, there was a serious economic recession in Britain and high unemployment. Today, growth is strong there and unemployment is 4.5%. In the circumstances, it’s normal to consider the future of Britain’s rebate.

THE MINISTER – No. The CAP issue was settled by the Brussels European Council in October 2002. We consider there have already been concessions, and not minor ones. France will not agree to bringing this up again. President Chirac has said so very clearly.

THE MINISTER – [The process] will be long and complex. What’s essential is for there to be a compromise. The Europeans have to demonstrate a sense of responsibility at a time of political crisis. France will se t the example.

BRITISH EU PRESIDENCY

THE MINISTER – The worst danger today would be a split in Europe. You can’t, on what are increasingly artificial ideological grounds, pit the social and free-market models against each other. You can’t live in a cocoon with social policies the be-all and end-all of everything, giving people to believe that handouts are the key and the creation of public jobs the solution. Nor can the claim be made that the wholly free-market model is a panacea and needs no regulation. The European model exists, even in Britain. It’s a model which regulates the market economy and is unlike the American model. Let’s stop pretending that the British are outside the European social system. Remember Lord Beveridge’s plan for social security!

EU ENLARGEMENT/ROMANIA/BULGARIA/TURKEY

THE MINISTER – These are two different issues. On one hand, there’s Bulgaria and Romania, for whom the Council and Commission have perfectly defined the parameters. If the conditions are respected, I don’t see what right anyone would have to challenge their accession. For Turkey, it must be clear – and we are being very vigilant on this because it’s what the French want – that negotiations with Turkey can start only if she complies with the conditions laid down by the European Council.

THE MINISTER – The Commission has to give us a very precise assessment. It is out of the question for negotiations to begin if Turkey is not complying with the conditions which have been laid down. The European Council in December set the framework for the talks. Turkey made commitments which she has to honour and must be aware of the sensitivity of the European peoples. Let me remind you that under the terms of the reform to the French Constitution instigated by Jacques Chirac, neither Turkey nor any other country will join the EU without a referendum in France, and so without the consent of the French. But aside from Turkey and speaking more generally, let’s remember that one of the purposes of the Constitution was to organize the EU’s life as a 25-member body. Without the treaty, it seems to me difficult to add still more States when the rules of our communal life have not been clearly defined. It’s one of the elements on which the EU’s capacity to absorb new members depends. In the wake of the French referendum, we have to think about this aspect of things.

FRANCE/US

THE MINISTER – Not at all. Since the beginning of this crisis, I have found in my partners not only a clear wish to understand the French "no", but also a sincere desire to see France going on playing a driving role in Europe.

THE MINISTER – We share the same values of peace and democracy with the United States. We know, when necessary, how to establish close and effective cooperation, be it in Haiti, Lebanon or West Africa. The fact that we share the same values allows us at times to have a different conception of the world.

THE MINISTER – Our friendship with the United States is deep-seated and longstanding. But this friendship doesn't mean subordination. We can have differences on the substance of issues and say so. Everyone remembers the debate on Iraq and Dominique de Villepin's important speech on 14 February 2003 at the UN Security Council. Everyone has to be able to stand up for what they truly believe.

THE MINISTER – Obviously, France can but be in favour of the goal of democracy. But we have principles and a method. At the principles level, our country is anxious to take democracy forward with due regard for the culture and civilization of all our partners. There's no point in wanting to impose ready-made solutions, imported from outside, which risk arousing rejection and intolerance. As for the method, contrary to received ideas, France isn't an enthusiastic supporter of the status quo. She knows the virtues of change and progress, but for peoples to accept these they have to understand them. This is true in both the Middle East and Africa.

THE MINISTER – Yes. I'll be going soon to express the friendship uniting our two peoples and talk about what we’re doing and can do together. I want to continue the constructive work of my predecessors and maintain a regular dialogue which doesn't exclude frankness. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains at the top of the transatlantic agenda and is strongly linked to the goal of Middle East democratization.

MIDDLE EAST/GAZA WITHDRAWAL

THE MINISTER – Yes. The success of this withdrawal in a few weeks' time is absolutely essential. We are very worried to see a resumption of violence in the Palestinian Territories. We’re calling on the Palestinian and Israeli authorities not just to redouble efforts to combat the violence, but also to deal with its causes. We have to stay vigilant in the face of the elements damaging the restoration of confidence and future negotiations between the parties. I'm thinking of the building of settlements in the West Bank and the route of the security fence. We'd like to see a new election timetable set as quickly as possible in Palestine. After the withdrawal from Gaza, the parties will have to resume the path towards a negotiated agreement in line with the Roadmap.

LEBANON

THE MINISTER – The Syrian troops' departure is a milestone, but UNSCR 1559 clearly said that in order for Lebanon to regain genuine sovereignty all Syrian forces had to pull out. The Hezbollah question is complex (...) it's also a Lebanese political party. Everyone knows how committed France is to the implementation of the whole of UNSCR 1559. Some real progress has been made in restoring Lebanese sovereignty. Lebanon will have an independent government after the current election. The international community will have to look with it at how to disarm the militia. We and our partners are making active efforts to get UNSCR 1559 implemented.

SAMIR KASSIR/MURDER

THE MINISTER – It's a heinous act whose perpetrators must be punished. The international community won't tolerate the continuation of attacks against political leaders or members of civil society in Lebanon. This was the Security Council's unanimous view.

M. DOUSTE-BLAZY/FOREIGN MINISTER

THE MINISTER – I came to political life through Europe. That's the meaning and purpose I wanted to give to my public commitment. As a convinced European, belonging to the founding fathers' political family, I am conscious that it's my responsibility to get across this message of the necessity for political Europe.

I also think that the world is changing and that the French diplomatic service, one of the world's finest and most efficient, must also evolve, continuing to extend France’s outreach, but adding to this an effort to exert influence. This increasingly depends on economic factors, and diplomatic action must be conducted in cooperation with the business world. It's vital for our country./.