Today's Date:

FRANCE/ITALY

THE PRESIDENT – Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to begin by warmly thanking the President of the Council, my friend Mr Silvio Berlusconi, who was kind enough to agree to a change of protocol, since I would normally have gone to Rome. He came here to Paris so that I didn’t have to take a plane. I thank him warmly for that. This is also the opportunity for me to highlight the importance, warmth, closeness of the relations, which, at a difficult time, require us to maintain a sustained dialogue between Italy and France. As everyone knows, our relations have always been excellent, but at a time when people are questioning things, when the public, in particular, French men and women and Italian men and women, are questioning the way we should see Europe, it was good for us to be able, through our discussions, our cooperation, to strengthen the already very strong ties between us.

So we began by talking about these ties, this joint action, these policies and concerns we share. We looked at all this in relation to the energy sector, where our partnership is absolutely exemplary. It’s a particularly important strategic partnership in a period like the one we’re going through, marked by the energy and oil problems. We share the same view of the effort we need to make together to further research and innovation.

So we have decided to come together and – particularly through our major industrial, scientific and technological companies – pool our resources and research in pursuit of the same ambitions, goals for technology and tomorrow’s great achievements. The working groups of the same kind as the one we’ve set up with Germany – there’ll now be three of us and ultimately probably more – are taking on this responsibility.

We talked about our very strong cooperation on defence evinced by our joint presence on the ground, particularly in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo, where Italy is taking command. In all these regions and in international peacekeeping operations, Italians and French soldiers are working hand in hand, in perfect unity, unity of action and of thought. We are also cooperating in this way in the arms sector, where we’re going together to go ahead with our Multi-Role Frigate Project (FREMM), and where, earlier, we signed an agreement to allow each side to use the other’s airspace, particularly to prevent terrorism. In short, we enjoy very strong cooperation on defence.

EU/CONSTITUTION

We obviously talked about our common vision on European matters, noting that there was today a problem revealed in France and the Netherlands by the refusal to ratify the Constitutional Treaty, and revealed in a different way in the other countries by the concern people are expressing, the questions they are asking themselves on the legitimacy of Europe’s action. And we have to give serious thought to this.

This is what we shall begin doing at the forthcoming European Council in London and what we shall go into in depth at the first Council under the Austrian presidency early next year. But it’s what we, Italy and France, already intend doing together – since we see things, the future and the problems in the same way – so that we can make a common contribution to resolving the problems today confronting Europe.

We also discussed, it goes without saying, our common position on the Mediterranean issue, and are in fact working together on the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the Barcelona Process. We see totally eye to eye on these matters.

MIDDLE EAST vFinally, we discussed the various crises on which we are also in perfect harmony, especially in the Middle East, with respect to Iraq and the projects we must together try to put in place to resolve the problems that country is experiencing; the Israeli-Palestinian problems and the help we have to give, in particular, to Mr Wolfensohn regarding the economic recovery, social situation in Gaza, which also presupposes the political and material situation being under control; with respect to Syria and Lebanon and the possible concerns here, especially in the wake of certain acts of destabilization, particularly terrorist attacks; and with respect to Iran where we share the same vision of things, the one moreover promoted by the European Union over the recent period.

That’s what the President of the Council and I talked about. (…)

EU/COMMISSION/COMPANIES’ DECISIONS/SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES

THE PRESIDENT – You talk about, rightly so – we talked about this too – a certain moroseness vis-à-vis Europe among Europeans in general, which they are expressing in one form or another and which is correct. So we should probably first ask ourselves why there is this moroseness. I have talked about it, as has Mr Berlusconi (…), but among the reasons for this disappointment or concern, there is in particular the fact that people feel – at any rate it’s the case in France, but elsewhere as well – that the Commission isn’t sufficiently determinedly and robustly defending their interests, and particularly Europe’s interests, and especially economic interests and consequently the ensuing social problems.

Is it legitimate and normal for the Commission, let’s say, to turn its back on a problem of the type you mentioned: a major international concern operating in Europe, with a not-insignificant share of its market here, earning a lot of money, making considerable profits, taking decisions with major social consequences. [Is it normal in such a case] for Europe, the European Union, i.e. in fact the Commission, to take the view that this isn’t within its remit, that it isn’t concerned or not to think it has something to say? This is one of the explanations of the current disaffection with Europe. Quite apart from what Mr Berlusconi said on the monetary policies and the problems this is causing for growth in countries like Italy, France, Germany and others, this isn’t normal. The task of Europe and the European institutions is also, and I’d say above all, to defend Europe, to defend Europe’s economic, financial and social interests.

WTO

Let me take another example of the same nature, that of the discussions at the WTO: these are important discussions, as everyone understands, which must allow the development of international trade (…). The Europeans feel that, up against an American entity defending its interests with enormous determination and which, to tell it like it is, hasn’t budged an iota on matters affecting it, up against emerging countries which, rightly, are also defending their interests – often, moreover, here, to the detriment of the poorest and particularly the African countries –, we have a Commission which is going from one concession to another and doesn’t give the impression of defending Europe’s interests when that should be its mission.

So there’s a problem which has to be looked at and is partly responsible for the hesitation we’ve felt recently vis-à-vis a certain vision of Europe. This is what we talked about this morning, it’s what we’ll talk about in London in a few days’ time at the summit organized by the British presidency, by the British Prime Minister. It’s what we’ll talk about too at the first European Council under the Austrian presidency on Europe.

(…)

TURKEY

THE PRESIDENT – France didn’t decide this, it was the European Union, i.e. its 25 members. Secondly, the question ought to have been “why are you in favour of Turkey in this matter, despite the reservations people feel, we see expressed in various quarters?” Quite simply because I believe we have to think a bit about the future.

When people talk about Europe, what do they really want? Driven by what history, punctuated by wars and tragedies, has taught us, what we want is to leave our children as large an area as possible in which we have genuinely entrenched peace and democracy – in fact, generally speaking democracy is an essential condition for peace –, peace and democracy. We also want this Europe to be strong; it is increasingly confronted in the world by some very great entities, China, India, America, tomorrow Russia, which have extremely substantial power to impose their points of view. And if Europe wants to have its say, it must have enough weight, in 20, 50 years, to talk to these great entities on an equal footing and when doing so defend its values and its interests.

When you look at Europe as it is, taking a very narrow view of things, you can tell yourself: basically we were fine when we were six. But if you do that you don’t address any future imperative, particularly with respect to peace and democracy.

You can’t fail to see that this area of peace, democracy and power in fact requires the presence of Turkey. First of all, it is legitimate for a people who want to adopt our values to be able to do so. Turkey will bring substantial power, giving Europe the dimension it needs to exist in tomorrow’s world. And then, if in fit of ill-considered pique or in a sort of gut reaction, you say: “well no, they aren’t European, they must go away!”, how do you know that the country won’t fall – given the way the world is going today – into the fundamentalist camp? Do you realize how dangerous that would be? 350 million people live in the whole Muslim world beyond Turkey. You realize the responsibility we’d be taking if we said: “no, there’s nothing to see, move on, we don’t want you”. And also, in the name of what, in the name of which European humanist tradition could we tell people who are saying “we want to have the same values as you”: “we don’t want you”. Of course, there are consequences: it isn’t Europe which is joining Turkey, but Turkey who is joining Europe and, consequently, that requires her to make all the necessary efforts to subscribe to all our values, our principles. It means a considerable effort for her. It’s a major cultural revolution, she is the applicant, fine. Can she succeed? I don’t know at all. What’s certain, on the other hand, is that she’ll need time, a lot of time.

This will take 10 to 15 years at the very least. Because this cultural revolution in Turkey – after all, the Turks are an ancient people, with a long history, traditions, a strong culture – means a huge effort. So will she succeed? I can’t tell you. I hope so. But I’m not sure at all. And consequently, let’s have the good grace – and it’s in our interests – to discuss.

Now you’ll say to me: “but if it doesn’t work, then, what will we do?”. If it doesn’t work, at that point we’ll see what sort of privileged, strong ties we’ll be able to create with Turkey if she still wishes us to. But that’s at the end of our discussion and the procedure which has been set. You tell me: “the French don’t want [Turkish accession]” and that many others don’t either, no matter. But what allows you today to say what the French will want in 15 years’ time? In the name of what principles are some people assuming the right to speak on behalf of our children and grandchildren? To be quite sure there won’t be any problem, I’ve decided – and I had a constitutional reform carried out to get it permanently put on record – that Turkey’s possible entry into Europe, since this was the issue, would require a decision taken not by Parliament but by referendum.

So the decision will remain in the hands of the French whatever happens. But when I hear people say: “but the French don’t want it”, what allows them to say what the French will want in 15 years’ time? What allows them in this way to prejudge the will of the French? Let’s wait until the time comes. What I can tell you is that the French will have the final say, as is right and proper in a democracy. (…)./.