Today's Date:

I'm delighted to be here once again at the National Press Club.

When I was proposed this discussion topic by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, I accepted immediately, because I thought that it was a golden opportunity to discuss a very complex problem at length. Now that the violence has abated and our suburbs have returned to normal, I think it is time to engage in this dialogue to see what it was about. But first, I would like to tell you what it was not. And what the government plans to do.

First, I would like to clear up some misconceptions.

I think it's important to begin by noting that the word “riot” is a bit too strong—particularly if you compare the recent events in France with what happened in, say, Los Angeles in 1992. In Los Angeles you had 54 dead and 2,000 injured. Here you had two teenagers who died after jumping over the wall of an electricity substation, and one adult who died after being beaten by teenagers. That's it. There were no guns in our streets. The main difference with Los Angeles or other riots is that no adults were involved—only teenagers between age 12 and age 20. I think this is a very important nuance. I would say what we saw was not rioting so much as social unrest triggered by the death of the two teenagers. It then spread from one neighborhood to another, from one teenager to another, in a copycat phenomenon accelerated by cell phones and the Internet, as well as TV coverage, and lasted two weeks.

The second thing, which is very important to understand— and here I agree with your analysis—is that it was not about the role of Islam. It had nothing to do with the clash of religions or civilizations or cultures.

I think it's very important to understand that. You may say, “But are you so sure?” Yes, I am.

First, we have absolutely no information that there were organized movements. On the contrary, we saw totally disorganized groups of teenagers without any leaders. This was one of the difficulties, because we had no interlocutors.

Second, religion played no role at all during those two weeks, either positive or negative.

Certainly the leaders of the France’s Muslim community did their best. The head of the umbrella organization representing all Muslim organizations in France issued a strong statement. The more radical Islamic group also issued a statement calling for an end to the unrest, which was called “un-Islamic.” But nobody in the impoverished neighborhoods paid them any heed.

Furthermore, as you said, not only Muslims were involved. In fact, it was a 20-year-old white non-Muslim from Northern France who received the heaviest sentence in connection with the unrest. He was sentenced for an arson attack and condemned to four years in prison.

Nor did the situation have anything to do with an Islamist threat. Some media made a connection between the terrorist attacks in Amman and the French neighborhoods. But we never saw the slightest hint of any direct or indirect link, or of any al-Qaeda sympathizers in the neighborhoods. Moreover, there was absolutely no link with events in Iraq and Afghanistan, or with the Middle East peace process. It's also interesting to note that only one synagogue was attacked. Only one. I say this because if you compare these two weeks of unrest with the situation in 2000-2001, where there were a number of incidents against Jewish establishments, schools, synagogues, houses and so on, it’s very clear that the situation is completely different now.

That doesn't mean we don't fear the recruitment of young Jihadis in our suburbs. Of course we do, but that's a different story. We know that in some places, some mosques, some houses, Jihadis are recruiting young teenagers to be sent to Iraq for Jihad, and then back to France for Jihad in France. But that is a different phenomenon, and it has nothing to do with the social unrest in these impoverished neighborhoods.

Last, it has nothing to do with the principle of secularism and the law banning all conspicuous signs of religious belief in our public schools, including headscarves.

No teenage girl participated in the demonstrations, and if you look at the attire of these young male teenagers, you wouldn’t have seen Muslim outfits but very Western, American-style outfits. And I can't resist the temptation of citing the U.S. State Department’s Office of Research, which recently issued its yearly analysis covering the whole world. About the Muslim situation in France, it reported, and I quote: "Large majorities of Muslims in France voice confidence in the country's government, feel at least partly French and support integrating into French society." And this was accompanied by a poll: according to the 2005 survey, 95% of French Muslims have a favorable opinion overall of France. 89% express confidence in the public schools, and 65% in the national government. This is an American survey.

Well, now that that’s cleared up--what were the events all about?

Well, the first question is, where did they happen? That will help us understand the underlying reasons for them. The unrest occurred in poor neighborhoods. We have more than 100 of them. It didn’t take place in all neighborhoods, and not in all big cities. Marseille, for instance, is France’s second-largest city, and by far the one where the percentage of Muslims is highest. There was no unrest there at all. Nor was there unrest in Muslim neighborhoods that were in good shape. It was only in impoverished neighborhoods.

Second question, what was attacked? What was attacked, as you've seen on your TV screens, was first of all cars: 9,000 cars were burned. These teenagers set on fire the cars of their neighbors, their parents, and their friends. Second, they attacked their schools, nurseries, gymnasiums, and of course, police stations. 96 of these buildings were damaged or destroyed. 126 policemen were injured on duty. All in all, the cost of those two weeks of unrest is estimated at $250 million, including $20 million for the 9,000 cars.

Why did the teenagers do that?

My explanation—and this is a starting point for our discussion—my explanation is that these teenagers feel alienated and discriminated against both socially and economically. They don't want to assert their differences, they want to be considered 100% French. They are demanding more liberty, equality and fraternity, not less. They are not fighting to be recognized as a minority, either ethnic or religious, but on the contrary, they want to be accepted as full citizens of the French republic. They want to be part of the French dream that brought their parents or grandparents to our country.

And let's admit it, we—the French authorities—made mistakes over the last couple of decades, and probably the biggest one was constructing hundreds of high-rise buildings in response to the housing crisis of the 1960s and 1970s when we had a big wave of immigration. Together, those hundreds of high-rise buildings turned certain neighborhoods into ghettos, making them hotbeds for all kinds of problems, including unemployment and drugs. That's certainly where we failed.

And as President Jacques Chirac said in his speech of November 14, it was a crisis of direction, a lack of points of reference, a crisis of identity.

Some of these teenagers are also living in broken families, often with single mothers or unemployed parents, and violence at home… So there was also a breakdown of parental authority. The result is often the creation of perhaps not gangs, but groups of young teenagers who spend much of their time in the streets. They have no place to play. They organize themselves and invent their own subculture. It is a complex phenomenon.

How can the French government respond?

The first thing to do was, of course, to restore law and order. Police have arrested nearly 3,000 people, including 640 individuals who are in prison.

But more important, perhaps, is the need to restore dialogue. This is being done. This dialogue is being reorganized and reinitiated at all levels. We have more police on hand to maintain a daily dialogue with these teenagers, and the mayors are doing their best to reconnect with these groups. We have a number of local community organizations, and they are being given additional resources to help them do a better job.

At the same time we need a global, overreaching, comprehensive policy. That has been put into place. It’s been decided to spend a total of $42 billion to aid these neighborhoods in the coming months.

The top priority will be education .

What will be done in terms of education is very concrete. First, the government has decided to triple merit scholarships for students from these troubled neighborhoods, and second, to triple boarding-school programs for deserving students to help get them out of their impoverished environments. The third initiative is a mentorship program organized by our “grandes écoles,” our best universities, which we are encouraging to open up, as Paris’s Institute of Political Science has done, and help more students from these neighborhoods to attend their programs. Fourth, apprenticeship programs will be available for failing students beginning at age 14, to help them to get a job quickly.

Second is housing.

As I said, in the places where housing was rebuilt in a better way, we had no social unrest. We know the way forward, and it's not a new path. We have already begun. $30 billion has been invested in these housing programs. But they must be accelerated. The government and the prime minister have asked that renovation delays be reduced to 18 months, and we will make a special effort to transform these poor neighborhoods into more lively places, not only with better housing, but also with gymnasiums, restaurants, coffee shops, cinemas, and so on, to make these neighborhoods lively cities.

Third is jobs.

Jobs are of course the best way to integrate. If you have a job, you have a future. Until you have a job, you feel that you are not quite integrated in the social fabric of France. What the government has decided is quite spectacular. Young people from all these troubled urban areas will all be received by the national employment agency in the coming months for a completely individualized assessment of their qualifications, and within three months will be offered either a contract or a training program or internship. So it's really a bold move. This government's proactive policy, which began months ago, is showing results. Unemployment has been falling for six months in a row. But as you said, it is these neighborhoods that are the problem, because that’s where the unemployment rate is the highest and that's why we have to address it head-on. Naturally, the best way to succeed is by creating jobs in these impoverished suburbs. That's why the government has decided to establish 15 additional opportunity zones where businesses that create jobs will be able to operate tax-free for five years.

And finally—but perhaps most important—the French Republic must fight all forms of discrimination.

We cannot ask young people to integrate on the one hand, and on the other hand, accept the fact that their origins sometimes prevent them from finding work. Fighting discrimination is not just a moral duty, it's also the best way to put an end to the violence. The French president, the French government has created a High Authority to Fight Discrimination and promote equality and equal opportunity. This body has been given the authority to impose sanctions when discrimination can be proven. So we hope within a short time, all those with comparable diplomas and experience will enjoy the same opportunities.

All this shows that for the French government, for the French society as a whole, what happened during these two weeks was a kind of wake-up call. We know that ahead of us lies a difficult, long-term process. But we want to remain true to the ideals of the French Republic—liberty, equality, fraternity—and to make this long-standing dream a reality for all French citizens. We are totally determined to succeed.

Thank you very much./.

For more information about the unrest in poor French neighborhoods