Today's Date:

Speech by Mr. Bernard Kouchner,Minister for Foreign and European Affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Mr Chairman,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear friends,

It is of course a pleasure for me to address such a distinguished audience. I would like to thank CSIS, and especially your President John Hamre, for this kind invitation. The quality of your analyses and the prestige of your research have made CSIS a benchmark player in the active debate that drives Washington in foreign policy matters. Here, as in France and worldwide, your reputation precedes you.

As, it would seem, so does mine.

So, at the risk of reinforcing stereotypes, I suggest today that we each remain faithful to our reputation, you in terms of the quality of what you say and I in terms of my plain speaking. And I would also suggest that we both make an effort to meet each other half way, with me aiming for quality and you for plain speaking.

Since plain speaking is needed today between our two countries, as it was in the past.

We know the situation. We know that France, Europe and the United States have recently gone through one of the most strained periods in the history of their relations. I am obviously referring to the Iraq crisis. Harsh, often hurtful words were spoken. Friendship was often forgotten.

We have put this behind us. It is therefore a good time, for all of us, here and now, to really take stock, to take a fresh look at the issues high on the global agenda with this friendship and sincerity in mind. With one simple question: to what use will we put this renewed friendhip?

This is what I would like us to speak to one another about today.

I know there are expectations of France in this regard. I know hopes are high. But I would like to say, since friendship means being able to speak plainly, I would like to say that the future inevitably holds further disagreements between us.

Since that is the healthiest way to work together, to accept that allies can have different views and their own interests.

When our policies diverge, this is too often called, in the United States, anti-americanism. When our policies converge, this is too often called, in France, alignment. Let us be adult : we define our positions on issues according to our interests and our analysis. Yesterday, as today and no doubt tomorrow, these interests and analyses will be most often close, but sometimes they will differ, or even be opposite.

These potential differences should be fully discussed, and not sink into belligerent rhetoric. And this should be done by comparing ideas, not slogans; well thought-out positions, not reactive stands.

This is why, over and above the somewhat pathologically inward looking questions about our relationship, we absolutely must strengthen our common capacity to act, to together deliver more peace and stability in the world.

The shock wave from the Iraq crisis is strong and probably lasting: as regards the balances in the Middle East and other regions; as regards the image of the United States and the West in general everywhere in the world; as regards our capacity to tackle crises together legitimately and effectively.

Whether we like it or not, there are those in Europe and France who find this hard to accept, your problem is also ours. It would therefore be mistaken for the Europeans to ignore it, just as it would be dangerous for the United States to be oblivious to the repercussions of its choices on the Europeans.

To be re-energised, our dialogue will draw on the strength of the bonds that unite us. It will draw on everything that France, Europe and the United States have in common: a shared history since the revolutions of the 18th century; common values rooted in individual freedom and universalism; and considerable exchanges, whether commercial or financial, cultural or scientific.

Our dialogue will also draw on those intense moments that brought us together, during the two World wars, when our very existence was in the balance, and then during the Cold War. Not to mention the American support, right from the outset, for the European endeavor, which was the driving force for peace and rebirth on our continent after 1945.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the wealth that underpins our dialogue also explains why our problems are felt so acutely when they arise, the importance placed on misunderstandings and the sensitivity that accompanies them. I believe that, rather than our differences, it has long been precisely our similarities that have irritated us.

Let’s bear in mind also that, despite some spats, we have never really parted ways. At the height of the Iraq crisis, when we were at complete odds, we co-operated with efficiency and discretion in the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In the Balkans, as well, we have always shown great unity, despite the highs and lows of our relationship.

And I could mention many other examples, starting with our defense of a world that respects the differences between cultures, religions and beliefs; a world in which we are open to the other since we are sure of the values of human rights and democracy. On both sides of the Atlantic, we have always believed in the supremacy of human dignity.

So, after this observation of a relationship that has never actually been broken, after this reminder of a friendship rooted in the history and deep-seated values of two often-twin peoples, after this affirmation of a constant need for plain speaking, how are we going to embody this much expected revival of our relations? If we are to remain plain spoken, including when disagreeing, and if we have never ceased to be friends, what will the future be made of?

The worst crises of the transatlantic relationship in general, and the Franco-American relationship in particular, have never been about transatlantic relations, but about the rest of the world. The same can be said about the challenges that face us today. I would therefore suggest that we look up and away from the Atlantic.

I will start with the most immediate crises before going on later to talk about the more global challenges we have to face.

In terms of crises, I think first of all of the Middle East. As you know, French diplomacy is actively engaged in this region. I myself went to Baghdad last month on the first visit by a French foreign minister in twenty years and the first visit by a French official since Saddam Hussein was removed from power. And last week, I was in Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. These issues are obviously on the agenda of all my meetings with Condoleezza Rice, whom I will see tomorrow.

The landscape in the Middle East is now one of increasingly interdependent crises. Tensions have heightened, if not spread out in a “arc of crisis” extending from Iran and Afghanistan to Lebanon through Iraq, Syria and the Palestinian Territories.

In addition to this phenomenon, I see several common factors to these seats of tension and conflict. They represent the challenges we face.

The most striking one is the erosion of military power, as shown by the situation in Iraq today, the uncertain outcome of Israel’s war in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006, and NATO’s difficulties in Afghanistan. These problems stem from the predominance of asymmetric conflicts and above all, I believe, from the difficulty of adequately incorporating the military tool into a political strategy.

Don’t misunderstand me: I am not saying that military power is no longer necessary nor effective. But I do know that, without a political dimension, the expression of power is, paradoxically, fragile. More than ever, the diplomat and the soldier, the two symbolic figures of international relations identified by the French philosopher Raymond Aron, must work together.

Winning peace after war is now the major challenge, which forces us to devise a new approach to power. Hard power and soft power, to use Joe Nye’s distinction, must be adequately combined during a conflict and after the conflict to help countries rebuild and establish sound institutions and governance: States to reconstruct such as in Iraq, to strengthen such as in Lebanon, to construct such as in Afghanistan, or to piece together such as in Palestine. With often, let’s face it, limits to our effectiveness.

To untangle this web of crises, we have to address each one with lucidity and determination.

I would first of all like to raise Iran. Not so much because this is a subject of fierce debate in Washington, Paris and elsewhere – but it is. But because this is the crisis the most pregnant with threats for the future. Without exaggeration, I would say that our responses to this situation today will shape the world in which we live tomorrow, far beyond the bounds of the region itself.

President Sarkozy clearly stated his opinion to French ambassadors meeting in Paris at the end of August. His firmness and determination have not escaped you: I have long shared them. An Iran with a military nuclear capability is, for us, unacceptable.

For the security of the region, including – but not only – that of Israel, for our security as Europeans, for credibility of the Non-Proliferation regime and for the credibility of the UN Security Council, in other words the future of the multilateral order - and we are in favor of a multilateral order. And don’t forget the risk that a nuclear-armed Iran would create in terms of regional proliferation. Its neighbors would be tempted to follow the same path.

This is why the Europeans, through the action of Germany, France and Great Britain, with my good friend Javier Solana, first supported and then joined by the United States as well as China and Russia, have launched a process to find a political solution. And we are still on this path: a political solution. The three Europeans spared no effort to negotiate after the October 2003 Tehran agreement. They did so wholeheartedly.

In response, what did Iran do? Iran resumed conversion, then enrichment. Despite this, the Six presented an ambitious and substantive offer in June 2006; with American support. I know that this required a brave move by American diplomacy, which agreed to change a policy of nearly three decades.

Despite this, the Iranian authorities have been playing for time, refusing any compromise and rejecting our offers. After three Security Council resolutions, including two sanctions resolutions, after increasingly ambitious and generous proposals, Iran has chosen to stick with its policy of fait accompli and to continue with uranium enrichment. In other words, Teheran has chosen to confront the international community, by ignoring its central demand: suspend your enrichment-related activities and your reprocessing activities. This choice forces us to increase the pressure.

To those who say that we should handle Iran with kid gloves, since it could destabilise the region, I say this: look at its adventurism today and imagine what it would be like if Teheran thought itself one day protected by a nuclear umbrella. In a region that is already so tense, so fraught with danger, allowing a country to move forward on the path to a nuclear weapon would be irresponsible. Without forgetting that, while the whole world concentrates on the nuclear issue, its missile programmes are moving forward in leaps and bounds.

With its European partners, with the United States, Russia and China, France is therefore determined to explore all avenues to prevent the worst. That was my sentence. I was asked: “what would be the worst?”. The worst is war. I was not looking for war. We have to calm the tension in the region. Dialogue, dialogue and dialogue again, therefore, despite rebuffs, while keeping our heads cool. As much as we can do; as far we can go. Bearing in mind that, in this case, if sanctions without dialogue can only lead to confrontation, dialogue without sanctions is unfortunately tantamount to weakness.

Needless to say, my priority, my greatest hope would be to obtain robust sanctions in the United Nations Security Council, a fourth resolution. I will meet with my colleagues of the E3+3 in New York next week. We will see. But the clock is ticking, and we cannot afford, given the risk, to exclude other avenues, including that of further European Union sanctions.

At the national level, the French government has asked French firms to show the greatest restraint in their investments in Iran, especially in the oil and gas sector. It is important here to maintain as much of a shared approach as possible: bear in mind that Iran would come out triumphant from a transatlantic rift. This is why the bills in preparation in Congress seem to me particularly unhelpful. Their effect would be exactly the opposite of what we jointly seek.

Yet for all that, we have absolutely no intention of giving up on dialogue. The door remains open. We must, time after time, explain to the Iranian regime that its current policy can only lead it to isolation, insecurity and economic stagnation. That if it can seize the opportunity that is presented to it by the international community, Iran and its people will have a chance to find the place that they deserve in the region and the international community, given their great history, their unique civilization and their potential. And that, in this case, Iranian youth will enjoy the future it deserves.

To sum up, we will do everything in our power to avoid the dreadful alternative laid out by President Sarkozy : the Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran. We will do our utmost for that.

Following the matter of Iran, I would like to turn to the Israel-Palestine peace process. I was in the region last week. I was able to appreciate on the ground the urgency of opening up a political perspective, along with the determination of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Abu Mazen, to move forwards despite their fragile political situation … or perhaps I should say because of this fragile situation, such is their awareness of the abyss that will open up under their feet if the situation remains blocked.

We know that a consensus is now possible over the aim, based on the two-state formula, with identified parameters, that is to say, in essence the Clinton parameters. So there is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. What remains to be seen is how to rebuild the tunnel, to quote my friend, Shimon Peres.

Indeed, the peace process constantly runs the risk of being held hostage to violence and radicals, with a Palestinian cause twisted to suit the ends of external manipulations. In Gaza, Hamas has taken the place of Fatah by force. If we want to avoid Hamas being one day replaced by an even more radical movement, such as Al Qaida, let’s help Israel and the Palestinian authority to seize the moment and move forward.

It is therefore urgent to isolate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the whirlpool of regional crises, to cut the bonds that have formed between Teheran and Gaza in recent months. This is not just a justice imperative for a people, but also a security imperative for all the peoples who reject violence and extremism.

The international conference planned for November here in the U.S. will mark, I hope, a decisive step with a binding timetable. France is prepared to fully assist this American initiative. With hope rekindled in Palestine, the entire camp working for peace, in the monarchies of the Gulf, in Jordan and Egypt, would be bolstered. That is not to say that we have to abandon the population of Gaza, which has the support of France and Europe, not at all. We must not leave them alone without our support, without relief nor hope.

I would like to raise Lebanon, where our two countries share the same aim and are working together to achieve it: presidential elections in the respect of the Constitution. Where our two countries will not allow themselves to deviate from this objective by heinous violence, which just yesterday was responsible for the disappearance of yet another political figure who had chosen the path of dialogue, and whom I had personally welcomed in Paris in the Celle Saint Cloud. Antoine Ghanem died. With four other Lebanese in the attack. That is how they undermine the peace process.

I could also talk to you about Iraq, where I spent three days last month. And I could talk to you about Afghanistan, where our two countries are working together on the ground. Yet I prefer to keep these subjects for our discussion and make the most of the time I have left to take a broader look at my first point: the fruitful and complex relationship that unites our countries.

Ladies and Gentlemen, as I said at the beginning, we have a tendency to discuss the transatlantic relationship as if we were cut off from the rest of the world. But the world is bubbling around us. Emerging powers are flexing their muscles, and revisionist views are challenging the current order. Surely what is really at stake is to join efforts in order to exert influence in the world in a way that is consistent with our interests and values. Surely that is where we should be seeking signs of the renewed friendship I referred to earlier.

It is appropriate to introduce the European dimension here. France is back in Europe. We intend to commit fully to European integration. That is France’s vocation and horizon, particularly looking ahead to the French presidency of the European Union in the second half of 2008.

Making the European Union a global actor on the international scene will be central to our priorities. You may as well know it right now. This means developing the European Security and Defense Policy . More broadly, it means reviewing the European Security Strategy (ESS) approved by the European Council in December 2003, a task we wish to embark on, if our European partners agree.

Of course, the ESS cannot be compared to the security strategy of a nation-state like the United States or France. But it represents the beginning of a doctrine for the European Union’s foreign policy and will help forge a common security culture.

Do I need to say it again? A stronger Europe is absolutely not incompatible with the transatlantic relationship. On the contrary, the two reinforce and complement each other. As much as Europeans themselves, Americans need – nobody questions this here - a strong Europe.

It is only natural, you understand, that Europe reinforces its political and military unity. First economic power in the world, its strategic weight remains weak. To defend our values and our interests, we need to build a credible European defense. What is at stake is simply a certain idea of Europe.

We will not stop some quarters – here and in Europe – from believing that this undertaking is in opposition to American power. This would make no sense.

As for the single market 15 years ago and the euro less than a decade ago, on European defense America has moved from hostility to skepticism, and from skepticism to acceptance – the next step must be support..

As a result, we Europeans are now your only allies with the capability to project stability externally, through a combination of financial or economic incentives (development assistance to the third world, economic assistance) or disincentives (sanctions), and, of course, diplomatic and military tools.

At this very moment, we are preparing an autonomous European military mission to eastern Chad and north-eastern Central African Republic, in response to the United Nations’ appeal to deal with all aspects of the Darfur crisis.

Among the levers Europe has at its disposal, let’s not forget its influence and attraction toward its neighborhood. Thanks to the success of European integration and to a common political will, we are in a better position now than a decade ago to act upon our immediate environment.

I would like to say a word about Kosovo.

Here again our views converge, even if our focus is naturally sharper because Kosovo is in Europe, and nowhere else, both geographically and, more importantly, politically. Kosovo is in Europe. The European perspective for the Balkans was reaffirmed at the Zagreb Summit in 2000, under the French presidency, and subsequently at the Thessaloniki European Council. It is for these two reasons, geographic and political, that Kosovo is first and foremost a European issue.

There were risks in maintaining the status quo; there were also risks in acting. Together, by supporting the conclusions of the Ahtisaari Report and the principle of supervised independence for Kosovo, we considered that the former were greater than the latter. On our initiative, the Contact Group and the troika are currently pursuing efforts to rekindle dialogue between Serbs, Albanians, and Kosovars.

I would like stress how much we are relying on the United States’ support for a European solution. At stake is Europeans’ credibility to stabilize their environment, and our identity in a Union open to the Balkans. It is therefore essential that we remain united if we want to avoid a recurrence of the tragedies of the past.

The European Union’s foreign policy was born in the Balkans; it must not fail in the Balkans.

You, Americans, have everything to gain from the development of the European Security and Defense Policy. We are well aware that you cannot and do not wish to intervene everywhere in the world every time a crisis breaks out. It is therefore in your interest for us to be able to do so. I do not see any situation where we would act contrary to your interests or those of NATO.

NATO will remain a pillar of our defense policy, at the heart of the transatlantic relationship.

It is true that NATO is being discussed in France, in terms of our relationship with the organization and our place inside the organization.

Let us not exaggerate the practical implications of those discussions. Much ground has already been covered. We already honor our place in NATO and our role at the service of the Alliance’s common goals through our financial and operational contributions. We have always been present, as the biggest European contributor to the air operations in Kosovo in 1999; then in KFOR, which we now command; and in Afghanistan since ISAF was set up.

But make no mistake about it: it is only in the framework of a strengthening of European defense that we will consider how our role in NATO might change. Two White papers are currently being drafted in France, one on defense and security, the other on foreign and European policy. The debate on NATO will be conducted calmly, seriously and thoroughly, without taboo or precipitation, and involve Members of Parliament and French public opinion.

In this spirit, it is also important to enhance the strategic content of the bilateral relationship between the European Union and the United States. With the threat of terrorism and proliferation before us, we see the very raison d’être of this relationship. CSIS was right on target when it launched, in 2004, a transatlantic dialogue on terrorism, of high calibre. Let us reinforce and broaden this dialogue, thereby anchoring our day-to-day operational cooperation in a broader strategic approach.

Such a dialogue will enrich the transatlantic relationship and complement what we do at NATO, without of course replacing it. This is a win-win proposal.

Ladies and Gentlemen, after that brief overview of some of the crises threatening our world and after those thoughts on the European Union and our ties with the United States, in conclusion, I would like to talk to you about global challenges affecting the world order. Because they are also factors that will determine the nature and scope of transatlantic relations.

I will focus on an issue on which we want to engage the United States, as you know. Global warming is an issue that Europeans and many nations around the world feel very strongly about.

President Sarkozy referred to it on the very night he was elected. A great nation like the United States has a duty not to impede efforts to combat global warming, one of the major challenges of this century. On the contrary, a great nation like the United States has a duty to take the lead in those efforts, because the fate of all of humankind depends on them.

We therefore wish to remind you of your responsibilities, and stress that reducing greenhouse gas emissions and investing in renewable energy sources will not happen without Washington. The conference that you will host next week in Washington is a welcome first step. The entire international community is calling for your commitment to this struggle, which is one of the most crucial of our times. The world needs you. As often in the past, I have no doubt that you will come to realize this.

Ladies and Gentlemen, these musings bring us back to the principles that must guide the world order, which the United States and Europe wish to renew.

The international environment is shaped by two sets of forces today.

On one side there is globalization, with its networks that create interdependence and pool opportunities, risks and crises. New actors are emerging and a transnational political conscience is forming, with the concomitant potential for war or peace.

On the other side there is geopolitics and the return of power politics in recent years. Every week it seems that Russia announces a new weapons system ; and we have yet to draw all the implications for our collective security of the anti-satellite test performed by China on January 11 of this year.

Which ground rules should be laid down to meet these challenges? After World War II, we succeeded together in configuring the world in roughly a decade, between 1945 and 1955. That was the implementation of the multilateral system around the UN, the creation of blocs, the beginning of European integration, and alliances such as NATO, and the Warsaw Pact.

The upheavals of 1989-1990 challenged most of those structures. But we have not managed, as we did after 1945, to create a new world order, nor even to adapt the previous one satisfactorily.

The enormous responsibility that befalls us is to ensure that today’s de facto multipolar world fosters stability. That is far from won. To achieve that goal, we must transform multipolarity into effective multilateralism, in which our major partners – Russia, China and the large emerging countries like Brazil, India and South Africa – also play a responsible role.

Attempting to give meaning to today’s world means looking ahead to tomorrow’s world. Will we be able to develop a common vision and turn it into reality? I am sure we will. This is one of the keys to peace.

The United States and the European Union are today the two global actors working together for a better, fairer, safer world. A world in which our children and grand-children will be happy to grow up.

Thank you.