Today's Date:

Visit to the US of Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy

Speech by Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy at the invitation of the French-American Foundation at Memorial Continental Hall, Daughters of the American Revolution.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am going to undertake a very difficult exercise: speaking as frankly as possible for this to be interesting while taking as few risks as possible seven and a half months before the French elections. How to be both frank and diplomatic? That’s what my speech is all about.

This is September 12, 2006, a significant moment for America. I’ve been watching American television for four days, and it’s quite clear. Even late last night, the programs were entirely devoted to what happened five years ago. Five years ago to the day, America and the world woke up deeply shocked by the horror of the attacks against New York and America. The heart of every French citizen beat in unison with that of every American.

At your invitation, I came to the United States to talk about the friendship between our peoples. If ever there was a day to do so, Mr. Ambassador, this is it. You are steeped in the memory of your fellow citizens, the memory of your loved ones, and together with the delegation I am leading, I wanted to stand alongside you in this moment of remembrance. I met the heroes of September 11: the police officers, the firefighters, all those who were the pride and honor of this deeply stricken city. On behalf of the President of the French Republic, I bestowed decorations upon the firefighters and the chief of police of New York, and I came to tell you that beyond our disagreements, all French without exception have compassion for the suffering of the Americans. And beyond compassion, all of the French respect the energy and combativeness that every American has demonstrated during the last five years. Nor has the French community in New York, with whom I met yesterday, forgotten that five of their number perished in the Twin Towers. Americans paid with their blood, but intermingled with that blood was the blood of five French citizens.

It seems the relationship between our two countries has always been a particular one. That’s diplomatic language. If I wanted to be frank, I wouldn’t say particular, I would say complicated. We have a complicated relationship and that’s been the case since George Washington received the surrender of the British at the final assault at Yorktown. Indeed, on October 19, 1781, it was a young Frenchman of 24, Lafayette, who led the assault on the English camp at Yorktown. The final assault. I’d like to remind you that at that time, there were as many French soldiers on the battlefield as Americans. But when the English General O’Hara, Cornwallis’s deputy, tended his sword to the Comte de Rochambeau, the leader of the French expeditionary corps, Rochambeau refused it, and demanded that the sword of victory, representing the defeat of the English and the victory of the Americans, be surrendered to George Washington, head of the American rebels. Rochambeau wanted the defeated general to hand over his sword and surrender to the leader of the Americans. That was the beginning of our history. We mustn’t forget 1917 and we mustn’t forget 1944, but neither should we forget 1781 as it was the beginning of the great history of the United States of America. And at the beginning of this great history, there were as many French soldiers on the battlefield as there were Americans. Two years ago, in Normandy, we commemorated the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of young Americans. In Normandy, your president received a warm welcome, an enthusiastic welcome, a popular welcome, because we had not forgotten that twice you came to our aid at a time when our Continent was on the verge of suicide. And I’ve come to tell you that when a young American soldier dies anywhere else in the world, I can’t help but think that he has the same face as one who came to die for us in 1917 or 1944. The death of a young American soldier is a major story for the French, not a footnote.

And when there’s a shared history like that of our two countries, it should be understand that our relationship is in a category of its own. I want to speak to you frankly, as one does with one’s family members.

I am told that France receives extensive coverage in the American press. One might say that this coverage is rarely positive. But I’d like to make a confession: The United States, alas, is treated the same way in the French press. It’s pointless, however, to analyze what French and American reporters write about our respective countries. I think there’s a disconnect between what they say and what our élites experience, and what the French people feel deep in their hearts about the American people and vice-versa.

The truth is that the French listen to Madonna, just as they used to love listening to Elvis and Sinatra; they go to the movies to see Miami Vice and enjoy watching The Maltese Falcon or Schindler’s List for a second or third time. They read James Ellroy and re-read Hemingway. That’s the truth. The young people wear American jeans and love American burgers and pizza. And nothing makes the French prouder than seeing a French actor in an American film. When they talk about a French actor, it means something when they say “he made it in Hollywood.” As soon as a French musician is successful, he explains how he worked with the greatest musicians across the Atlantic and, preferably, recorded in the United States. And all French parents dream of sending their child to an American university. So tell me: If that’s the dream of French families, how can the French detest the United States?

For me, the virulence of the commentaries in the press and by the French élites reflects a certain envy, not to say jealousy, of your brilliant success. I love my country deeply and no one can claim I don’t want the best for it. But the United States has been successful on so many fronts: It’s the world’s leading economic, monetary and military power. Your economy is flourishing, your intellectual life is rich, and research in the U.S. is structured in such a way that the world’s best researchers work at your universities. And once they’ve worked at those universities, they quickly turn into American patriots. This very fact stands as proof that the model of American integration is as effective as ever, since more than half of America’s Nobel Prize laureates are immigrants. As for the arts, whether we’re talking about music, film or the performing arts, the popular entertainment almost all of us love doesn’t preclude original, demanding, deeply modern artistic creations that influence contemporary art worldwide. I’m thinking in particular of contemporary art, whose world capital has long been New York. Let me tell you, and make things even worse for myself, that I appreciate the particularly intelligent system of tax incentives that ensures not only that you attract money from all over the world, but that you also have the good grace to invest it in modern art.

So let’s look forward.

There’s something the French haven’t understood clearly enough, and I want to tell them: The crisis our two countries experienced in 2003 was probably the gravest since 1966, when American forces withdrew from French NATO bases. The 2003 crisis was as severe as it was because it was an emotional crisis, and I know how profoundly it resonated with the American people. You Americans were struck in the heart on September 11, 2001, and never understood our opposition to the intervention in Iraq. Some of you, to call a spade a spade, even felt it as a form of betrayal.

You must have loathed us at that time, for France to have been the target of such a media campaign. At the height of the war, France was alleged to have issued a passport and visa to Saddam Hussein and shipped weapons to Iraq. I want to talk about that, because I want to dispose of it. But I can tell you that even during the worst days of this political dispute, our intelligence services were working together on a daily basis. There were unpleasant articles coming out on both sides of the Atlantic and yet every day, several times a day, the French and American intelligence services were working together. Our two ambassador will correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m well placed to say it, as I was already the Interior Minister at that time. I was stunned to see the violent criticisms on both sides that in no way corresponded to the level of trust shown by our daily work. I don’t want to dismiss these problems, and the truth I’m telling you about the closeness of our work doesn’t change the fact that I clearly recall the disagreeable articles on both sides of the Atlantic. Those of us who were working together at the time would wonder “where does this public violence come from?” while in private, professionally speaking, we were working so well. I would even say that our cooperation was impeccable, which makes sense given that we have the same adversaries. Bin Laden targeted New York but do you think that as Interior Minister for four years, I’m not well aware of the fact that he might just as well have targeted Paris?

So even though that difficult period is behind us, I have to tell you, as a friend: You may have been indignant about France’s attitude, but you should know that the 300,000 French nationals who live in America were deeply hurt by the lack of comprehension and the slander that was sometimes directed against them.

Well, I think we are beginning to transcend that crisis. Thank goodness! I’m perfectly aware of the fact that France’s popularity rating among Americans was lower than Libya’s at that time—not a very good sign, even though Libya has made some progress. In return, however, I have to tell you that in the view of France—and not just France, but many countries of Europe—at that time, America was seen as a threat to world peace. But that was 2003. What do we do about it? How do we get off to a new start, how do we definitively transcend all of that? Because the facts are the facts: We border the same ocean. In France, when people want to attack me, they say, “This Mr. Sarkozy, he’s an Atlanticist.” What an attack! So they’ve noticed that France borders the Atlantic Ocean. I can confirm that. It’s undeniable: France borders the Atlantic Ocean, and so does the United States.

With a stake of some $150 billion, France is the second-largest foreign investor in the United States. Three thousand French companies are located in the United States, directly or indirectly employing 600,000 American workers. A billion dollars is exchanged daily between France and the United States. I’m giving you these figures to show you that I don’t have any kind of hang-ups when it comes to dollars.

We’re especially proud that for several years now, France’s best soldiers have been fighting the Taliban alongside American soldiers in Afghanistan, paying with their blood.

But it’s true that in both of our countries, the crisis sparked the reappearance of all the false ideas peddled about our two peoples. So let’s ask the question: Just how did the relationship between French and Americans become so complex and so passionate?

For the United States, France is one of the few countries with which it has never been at war, and vice versa. And yet everyone knows that at some point in their history, our two nations have fought with nearly all the major countries that now comprise the international community. You can talk to me about the twinship between England and the United States, but that twinship came at the cost of a hell of a war. There has never been a war between France and the United States.

My dedication to our relationship with America is well known and has earned me substantial criticism in France. But let me tell you something, I’m not a coward. I embrace that friendship, I’m proud of the friendship between France and the U.S. and I proclaim it gladly. Let’s not be afraid to say that relations between France and the U.S. are often difficult. It has always seemed to me that our disagreements have been secondary compared with what we share. Because the paradox is that our two people are united by common values. Freedom? We have exactly the same idea. Universalism? The United States and France both think that their values are so strong that it’s their vocation to nurture the entire world. Democracy? The same. Human rights? The same analysis. And basically we’re so complex and so passionate because we resemble each other so much. So we detest each other at the same time that we admire one another.

Can we expect anything positive to come from such complex relations? I think we can.

I believe that this universalism that we share should strengthen and unite us rather than divide us. We’re said to be incompatible rivals. I don’t share that view. Our common vision should unite us to work for a world of peace, tolerance and security. Who here can tell me that two of us, the United States and France, are too many to ensure world peace, security and stability? So much the better that France holds an autonomous position vis-à-vis the U.S.; they are complementary and it’s often necessary! There’s no future in the opposition between you and us.

I am convinced that our relations suffer from too many misunderstandings caused by a lack of dialogue and sometimes by a smidgen of bad faith. I don’t want to assign guilt but to seek solutions. I want us to rebuild the transatlantic relationship on a foundation of trust and shared responsibility. How about if we decided to trust each other! How about if, based on this regained trust, we decided to assume shared responsibilities!

We have to be able to exchange ideas and hold a dialogue without agreeing on everything. It’s not the end of the world. When you decide to leave on vacation with friends, can you be sure you’re going to agree with them about every single thing? On reforming the health care system? Or on who to vote for in the next presidential election?

New disagreements will arise in the future, of course. They’re inevitable, even among allies. But we should never again transform our disagreements into crises. Instead let’s turn them into opportunities for a constructive dialogue, without arrogance and without melodrama. Certainly we can disagree, but as we express such disagreements we should remember that we have long been and will always remain friends. I freely acknowledge that France isn’t free of blame: While I believe our disagreements have often been legitimate, there are different ways of expressing them. It’s not appropriate to try and embarrass one’s allies or give the impression of gloating over their difficulties. Believe me, a weak America, an entangled America is a problem for the entire free world. An America that doesn’t assume its strength, an America that isn’t respected, an America that isn’t loved is a problem for all friends of America. I’ve always thought that modest effectiveness was best in our dialogue. And I’m perfectly aware that sometimes France is justly called arrogant, and we have progress to make on that count. You can love your country and never want it to be arrogant, because in today’s world, no one tolerates arrogance.

My dear American friends, we are all the children of the same battle—the battle against Nazi totalitarianism. Then we undertook another battle, the battle against Marxist totalitarianism, in which the role of the United States was so essential.

Our relationship with the U.S. is one of the pillars of our foreign policy, and the United States must accept a strong European political union, because it’s in its interest. Because a strong European political union will ensure that the United States doesn’t have to stand alone in bearing the weight of the world, which is unbearable both literally and figuratively.

I believe it’s time to launch a new era in transatlantic relations, in which we do away with the misunderstandings and grand speeches that stand in the way of any real dialogue. We must re-establish an alliance against the new threats of the 21 st century and defend our common values. Our duty is to work together to confront new transnational scourges: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, failed states, environmental and humanitarian disasters, and pandemics. Who can explain why we shouldn’t work together in all these battles? America is Europe’s obvious and natural partner. And Europe must be strong, present in the world, responsible.

After centuries of warfare and hatred, after the Holocaust, the European nations embarked on one of the most ambitious endeavors of their history: turning a continent, Europe—which for centuries had been torn apart by barbarous wars—into a continent of peace. Realize what we built, what our fathers built in Europe. For centuries, Europe had been the part of the world where there was most often fighting in the most barbarous, definitive ways. For 60 years, the most unstable, bellicose continent of the world has been the most stable one. Who here in the United States could think they don’t need Europe, don’t need a strong Europe? And what would the U.S. have to gain with a Europe throwing itself back into fratricidal warfare? Nothing. The European political union is an ally for the United States. The United States must accept a strong political Europe because it needs it.

In fact, this strong political European Union would not have seen the light of day had the United States itself not played a primary role in its reconstruction with the Marshall plan, supporting the stricken continent financially and protecting it from Communist imperialism. Until 1989, Europe was divided in two and, in the face of the Soviet Union of the time, we together were in the camp of freedom. Today the United States must not, cannot worry about the next step the Europeans want to take: establishing a European political union with strength and influence on the international scene. Make no mistake: Europe does not want to be an adversary of America. It is unthinkable for Europe to forge its identity in opposition to the United States, or anyone else for that matter. Whether or not you believe in the concept of civilization, it is obvious that the bonds between Europe and the United States are unique and irreplaceable. And Europe is such a strong idea that it doesn’t need to build itself in opposition to any nation in the world. Europe is an idea of peace and prosperity. Europe was not conceived to be against the United States, to be a rival of the United States. Europe was conceived to bring peace and prosperity to a continent devastated by centuries of war.

It is in the U.S. interest for this political Europe to be coherent and governable. In the crises you have to manage today, it’s a problem for the United States if Europe isn’t powerful enough. That is why I am vigorously opposed to the idea of an endlessly expanded Europe, a Europe without borders and thus without identity. In this regard, last year’s rejection of the European Constitution should satisfy no one, because it considerably delays the emergence of the European Union as a responsible player on the international scene.

I must also say, Mr. Ambassador, that I have often been asked about the place of Muslims in France, because of concern in the United States. My dear friends, let’s be consistent. What’s the point of worrying about our ability to integrate Muslims in France or in Europe if at the same time, and just as forcefully, the United States asks us to accept Turkey in Europe? Even if you consider that we have a problem with Islam, in which case, you have to give us time to find the ways and means to create a European Islam and reject an Islam in Europe. But don’t then give equal support to the integration of a country like Turkey with 75 million inhabitants. Consistency is part of the relations between Europe and the United States.

Renewing the transatlantic relationship is a necessity if we want to achieve our long-term international objectives. What are those objectives?

First of all, the protection of our vital interests, that is, the security of our territory and our citizens. We must then assume our responsibilities as permanent members of the Security Council and promote our democratic values on the international scene. That doesn’t mean that we consider our civilization superior to others. We reject the clash of civilizations. But let’s be quite clear—democratic values have a universal vocation. In fact I’m at odds with those who for decades explained that democracy wasn’t suited to Eastern Europe. In general, the people who say such things are the ones who don’t live there. Just like those who now say that democracy isn’t suited to Russia or China. And so it goes with the long history of false ideas: “Democracy is never made for those who live under dictatorship.” Generally speaking, those who say these things are those who are in the camp of freedom. It is democracy’s vocation to spread throughout the world, not just because it’s a moral duty but also because it’s the only way to truly stabilize states undermined by domestic or foreign conflicts.

Today there are two new types of challenges that we are confronting together.

1/ First, new threats. The bad news is that with the end of the Soviet Empire, we thought the world would be more stable. Now, the Soviet Empire no longer exists and Europe has been reunited with its brothers in the East, who were too long abandoned behind the Iron Curtain. Yet the world has never been more unstable and dangerous. I want to say how crucial the reunification of the European family has been. And I want to salute the courage of our European brothers in the East. For the truth is, they freed themselves, and the heroes of their liberation are not so much the Western Europeans as men with names like Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and John Paul II. It is those men who made it possible for Eastern Europeans to throw off their chains. Naturally, Western Europe opened itself up. Imagine if it had been easier for them to free themselves from the Soviet yoke than to join the camp of freedom! Naturally the United States provided protection and a model, but in the beginning, there was Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, John Paul II and no one else.

Today’s world, with its multifaceted dangers, is more troubling than yesterday’s. But we must rejoice in the collapse of totalitarianism. I for one certainly don’t miss the days of the balance of terror and mutually assured destruction.

As Interior Minister for several years, I am however all too aware of the new threats facing our democracies. Terrorists have attacked New York, London, Madrid and Tel Aviv, but also Amman, Algiers, Cairo, Nairobi and Jakarta. I am perfectly aware of the fact that Paris, which was a victim 11 years ago, could become one again today. The French secret services have described the threat to France as high and permanent. This ideology of hatred for democracy, freedom, modernity and equality between men and women makes no distinction, establishes no hierarchy among its enemies. For the enemies of freedom, we are all in the same camp. To ignore this danger would be madness. The prospect of a new attack, this time with chemical or even nuclear weapons, can be averted only by strengthening our cooperation in the intelligence arena. In a few minutes, I will have lunch with the Secretary of Homeland Security. As I said, I am well positioned to stress that our collaboration is exemplary, and from this standpoint, there’s not a moment’s delay in the transmission of intelligence between America and France.

Of course, the major strategic crisis we are facing today is the question of Iranian nuclear power. France’s position is clear and unambiguous: Under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, Iran—and I am weighing my words—does not have the right to try and acquire a nuclear weapon, although the Iranians do have the sovereign right to acquire civilian nuclear capability. But everybody knows that there are too many suspicions about Teheran’s real intentions. It’s a risk we cannot take.

Through its support for Hezbollah and through its president’s unacceptable remarks on the Holocaust and the existence of Israel, the Iranian regime has made itself an outlaw nation. The prospect of such a regime armed with weapons as destructive as nuclear missiles is terrifying. It would open the way to a murderous arms race in the region, as other countries would want to take the plunge themselves. That’s the first risk. It would also be a constant threat to Israel’s existence. History has shown us the consequences of complacency in the face of aggression and fundamentalism. Resolving this question will demand the utmost firmness and the greatest unity. Diplomacy, Mr. Ambassador, must be our main weapon, although I believe we must leave all options open in order for diplomacy to work.

The debate on the Iranian nuclear program, taken up by other countries that are themselves considering uranium enrichment programs, must prompt the international community to take strong action on the world nuclear market. Like Pierre Lellouche, I am convinced that this energy source (I mean uranium) will continue to represent a major solution for the future when we are faced with a shortage of fossil fuel. So, my dear Pierre, I would like to make a proposal: Why not create a World Bank for nuclear fuel under the auspices of the IAEA? The nuclear nations would contribute to it financially or in kind, and it would guarantee shipments of civilian nuclear fuel as well as the reprocessing of fissile materials to all nations that desire to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes while naturally renouncing the military nuclear option. It seems to me that in this way, the international community, represented by the IAEA, would offer all the guarantees of secure access to the benefits of nuclear energy without the risk of it being hijacked for military ends. Moreover it deprives certain potential proliferating nations of the pretext—and it is a pretext—that they have the right to civilian nuclear energy and energy independence. Since there’s a debate, let’s guarantee all the countries in the world access, through an international agency, to nuclear materials to develop a civilian nuclear program. And at the same time, we would be guaranteed that such civilian nuclear programs would not be hijacked for nuclear purposes.

Nor can we much longer sidestep the debate on environmental threats. It is a subject of discussion with the current U.S. administration. There! We can have disagreements, and so what! Let’s talk about it calmly, without pitting the various parties against one another.

How can a great country like the United States lead the way economically, on integration, culturally, monetarily, linguistically, militarily and yet be absent from this important environmental battle? The planet is dancing on the edge of a volcano, and the United States is an important part of this planet. The United States cannot be uninterested in the issue of the environment. We must save the planet from the consequences of human superactivity. Half of our old-growth forests have already disappeared from the earth’s surface; the ice is melting in Greenland; world carbon dioxide emissions will increase by at least 75 percent in the next 25 years while the situation is already critical. Do you think this vast American continent can be spared the consequences of worldwide climate disaster? That’s hard to believe.

The greenhouse effect, ocean pollution (and you border two oceans), the looting of natural resources—in 30 years there will be no more oil, in a century no more gas—how will we face these energy challenges? And this looting of natural resources will not just mean climate change, desertification, a loss of biodiversity, the degradation of health and the endangerment of the most fragile forms of life. Where will this looting lead? To wars of hunger and wars over water. And these wars of hunger and the wars over water will be all the more terrible because they will be wars of desperation. Because those waging them will have nothing to lose, because they will have nothing left.

The problem of the environment isn’t only a quality-of-life problem, Ladies and Gentlemen, but the problem of life itself. The problem of the environment is so serious that it mustn’t be left to environmentalists alone. We must stop living at the environmental expense of future generations. Because what’s so tragic about this debt is that it can’t be paid back. Life destroyed cannot be reborn. I therefore champion the idea that along with international trade law, there should be an international environmental law with the same legally binding force. And we need the United States to wake up and make this battle for the protection of our planet a battle of American democracy. How could it run counter to the values you defend? You who respect life and have placed life at the heart of the values of American democracy, why and how could you be uninterested in the continuation of life on the planet that’s our own?

2/ Furthermore, in today’s world, our actions take place under the informed and curious eye of world public opinion. Because of this, we can no longer escape our moral duty to promote our democratic values. With the advent of globalization, it’s a truism that the world has become a village. But because we’re informed of everything so quickly, I want to stress that silent equals guilt. Silence can be explained and excused by ignorance. Silence, Ladies and Gentlemen, is not acceptable when you know. But in today’s world, we know everything in real time. In the past, you found out in the end, but there was a time lag between the event and the knowledge of that event. That lag could be months or years. Today it’s a matter of hours. So the consequence of globalization is that silence has become unacceptable.

It is therefore our duty to work together to try and put an end to the conflicts that inflame the powder keg of the Middle East. We cannot allow ourselves to remain impotent in the face of rising tensions and the aggressiveness of certain regional forces. And our experience of the last few months shows us that when we French and Americans work together—yes, together—we are effective. I don’t want to compare France to the United States of America, I simply note that when we oppose one another, we are less effective. And when we stand together, as the Lebanon crisis showed, Ladies and Gentlemen, we are more effective.

That was the case with the passage of UNSCR 1559 on Lebanon. Who inspired 1559? The Americans and the French. It is this unity and this determination that made the cease-fire possible, helped sparked the departure of Syrian troops and gave new hope to this stricken Lebanon to which we attach so much importance.

Today I welcome the passage of UNSCR 1701 and unreservedly support President Chirac’s decision to send 2,000 soldiers to Lebanon to serve in UNIFIL. The Israeli intervention in Lebanon may be considered clumsy and disproportionate. From this point of view, I want to say how close I feel to Israel. But precisely because I am a friend of Israel, I want to say that inaction does not suit it.

The truth is that there was just one aggressor in this conflict and that aggressor has a name: Hezbollah. Israel had the right—I would even say the duty—to defend itself and its citizens. It was Hezbollah that decided to take the Lebanese people hostage in an adventure that I can only call and consider senseless. Let’s be clear: It is in Israel’s interest to act proportionately. Even though it is the victim, it must do everything it can to avoid seeming like an aggressor. And all of Israel’s friends are telling it frankly: “We are on your side, but react an appropriately, not disproportionately.”

I also believe it is critical for us to continue working together to resolve the conflicts in Africa. Dear Pierre, we were talking about this with Kofi Annan yesterday. I am thinking in particular of the situation in Darfur. Thousands of poor people displaced, threatened. And those who don’t apply UN resolutions must tell themselves that one day, they will have to answer before the International Criminal Court for the situation of three million displaced persons.

The horror is on a daily basis. The degree of violence and cruelty is reminiscent of the worst tragedies the African continent has seen in recent decades. For a certain number of our citizens, Darfur is far away, but for me it’s close. Because the men and women of Darfur resemble you and differ from you on just one count. It’s a small difference—the difference of skin color. And a different skin color does not justify abandoning people to an ignoble tragedy. How can a great democracy like the United States, how can a great democracy like France, be uninterested in the Darfur situation? And Sudan must face up to its responsibilities or might as well say it’s no longer part of the international community. I know how involved President Bush is on this question. It is urgent to act now so that Darfur—I’m going to use strong language, but these words come from my heart—does not remain a shameful page in our own history, so that our indifference, our blindness, our lack of courage or perhaps a little bit of all these things together don’t lead us to avert our gaze from the first crime against humanity committed in the 21 st century. Ladies and Gentlemen, the 20 th century saw crimes against humanity. In Darfur, a crime against humanity is happening right now.

As I said, the challenges facing us are numerous and complex. We will probably encounter new failures, new disappointments. But the greatest failure would be that of inaction. We will prevail if we stand together, Americans and French, strengthened by the things we have in common and enriched by our differences. Division, for me, means retreat. Divided we will lose. So it is in the name of the centuries-old friendship between France and the United States, that I say to you, Ladies and Gentlemen, that the French will continue to be your friends—faithful friends, constant friends, true but demanding friends, friends who stand on their feet. Because friends who lie down are not really friends. Friends who are proud, friends who have convictions that are no greater or stronger than yours, but they too exist. Friends who tell you: respect us, let’s combine our forces, love us, for the sake of stability and peace in the world. I hope you’ve understood that for me, this journey to the United States wasn’t just a journey like any other. Thank you./.