European Affairs
c/o The European Institute
1001 Connecticut Avenue
NW, Suite 220
Washington, DC
20036-5531
Tel: (202) 895-1670
Fax (202) 362-1088
info@europeanaffairs.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was a highly unusual event when Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, the main
conservative candidate to be the next president of France, came calling in Washington
in September. Ahead of elections next May, his trip was bound to be viewed by many
French voters as confirmation that Sarkozy is more strongly (and more openly) pro-
American than his rivals, including prominent leaders in his own neo-Gaullist party,
notably incumbent President Jacques Chirac, whom Sarkozy hopes to succeed.
In Washington, Sarkozy took the bull by the horns. He chose to publicly explain
his seemingly instinctive “Atlanticist” tilt (code in Paris for “pro-American”) while laying
out what he considers reasonable expectations about U.S. behavior toward France
– basically, a little respect in public and, in private, good cooperation. It was a significant
Transatlantic overture from the oldest and often most nettlesome U.S. ally.
Pointing up his apparent disagreement with much French diplomacy since the Bush
administration invaded Iraq, Sarkozy said: “I believe our disagreements have often
been legitimate, [but] it is not appropriate to try and embarrass one’s allies or give the
impression of gloating over their difficulties.” The thrust of this approach could hint at
interest on the part of Sarkozy in seeking a new conceptual framework for France’s approach to relations with the United States, with both sides seeking to play down their
divergences rather than magnify them for possible domestic political gain.
In his speech, Sarkozy readily acknowledged a unique role for U.S. leadership, saying:
“A weak America, an entangled America, is a problem for the entire free world.”
And he frankly acknowledged the damage done by short-sighted French anti-Americanism.
“France, especially its elites, has sometimes in recent years been guilty of strident
hostility to the United States that was misplaced, irrational and dangerous for
succeeding in common Transatlantic goals,” he said.
At the same time, he urged U.S. leaders to grasp the advantages of taking more account
of France’s positions, not only to keep an important Transatlantic ally by the
side of the U.S. but also to work out more sustainable approaches against common
threats. A good example of this was his tough stance against Iran, coupled with a call
for the creation of an internationally-managed supply of uranium fuel for electricity
generation in countries such as Iran that the international community does not want
to trust with its own national uranium-enrichment program.
In calling for a more constructive approach to bilateral U.S.-French relations,
Sarkozy matched his bluntness about French shortcomings with a challenge to Americans
to face up to contradictions in U.S. attitudes toward France and the European
Union. For example, he asked, at a time when Americans are wringing their hands
about the EU’s problems integrating Muslim minorities, why do U.S. officials simultaneously
deliver public lectures to Europeans about their duty to accept Turkey as a
new EU member state?
The Sarkozy analysis of the U.S.-French relationship was perhaps best encapsulated
by an ironic mistake in translation during his remarks when he told his audience,
as translated by an interpreter, that France and America are two countries “divided
by common values.” This phrase was corrected in the published version to
depict the two countries as “united by common values.” But the mistaken version –
perhaps a Freudian slip? – may contain a kernel of truth in the sense that Americans
and French people may well agree on the values cherished by the West and yet disagree on how to put them into practice – all the more violently because each nation
expects the other to share its view. In his speech, Sarkozy seemed to take the view that
it was up to elites in both nations to prevent such misunderstandings from spilling political blood in the Transatlantic water. “Vive la difference,’’ he seemed to say, “but let’s keep the fireworks in bounds.”
Many passages emerged spontaneously as he departed from his prepared text. Did
his speech provide a blueprint for a more effective bilateral relationship? Time will tell,
presumably starting two years hence when a new French president will start working
with a new U.S. president.
Some key passages are excerpted below (from the French government’s official
translation of the Sarkozy speech).
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... 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 elites experience [on
the one hand] and what [on the other
hand] 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 We 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
elites 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....
…I can tell you that even during the
worst days of this political dispute [about
the Iraq war], 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 ambassadors
[the audience included the French ambassador
to the United States and the
U.S. ambassador to France] 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
[on intelligence] 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?
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....
… The European political union is
an ally for the United States. The United
States must accept a strong political Europe
because it needs it… 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.
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 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.
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....
…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…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 I would like to make a proposal: Why
not create a “world bank” for nuclear fuel
under the auspices of the International
Atomic Energy Agency? 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 [seized]
for nuclear purposes....
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 silence equals guilt. Silence can be
explained and excused by ignorance. Silence
is not acceptable when you know…
[and] 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. gat 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…
we are more effective....
[Today I unreservedly support President
Chirac’s decision to send 2,000 soldiers
to Lebanon to serve in UNIFIL
[United Nations Interim Force in
Lebanon]. The Israeli intervention in
Lebanon may be considered clumsy and
disproportionate. [But] I want to say
how close I feel to Israel… I am a friend
of Israel [and] 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. [But]
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 appropriately,
not disproportionately.”
~
I hope you’ve understood that for
me, this journey to the United States
wasn’t just a journey like any other.
|
|
|
|
