The United States and France in World Transformed

Conference by His Excellency Jean-David Levitte, Ambassador of France in the United States, at the Baker Institute for Public Policies, Rice University, Houston, May 22, 2003.

I'm delighted to have this opportunity to be in Houston to discuss a key question: what went wrong and what can we do_
I will start with a flashback. On 9/11, I was in my office as the Ambassador to the UN in New York on the 44th floor of a magnificent building with a wonderful view of downtown Manhattan; and I saw from my office the destruction of the Twin Towers and this will remain in my heart for the rest of my life.
And when you said, quoting a French paper, that this day, yes, we were all Americans, I was an American, and my first thought was that this was worse than Pearl Harbor. It was worse than Pearl Harbor simply because the heart of America, mainland America, the heart of New York - Manhattan - had been attacked. And those people who died, the three thousand people who died, were not soldiers. They were civilians. What was the reason for their death_ Only because they were there, they suffered the most horrible tragedy.
I reacted immediately. I was, at that time, the President of the Security Council of the United Nations. Glued with my collaborators to the windows of my office, we said "We have to do something". We couldn't call Paris, we couldn't call anybody, but we prepared a draft resolution and this draft said two things which were two breakthroughs: the first was that such an act of international terror should be considered as an act of war, paving the way to self-defense from the United States towards those who did that. The second legal breakthrough was that we considered that those responsible were not only the ones who committed these acts, but also those who provided hospitality, trained, equipped and financed the terrorist networks. This resolution was proposed to my colleagues from the Security Council, the very moment the doors of the UN were reopened on the 12th of September at 10:00 in the morning and the resolution was unanimously adopted at 11:00 on this very morning - one hour later. This shows that sometimes we don't need eight weeks or three weeks to adopt a resolution in the Security Council because we didn't need instructions from our capitals; we knew what we had to do.

And you remember that during the war in Afghanistan, which was triggered by these attacks and permitted by the resolution of the Security Council, authorized by the resolution, France was side by side with the United States of America. We had five thousand soldiers deployed with our aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle, with planes side by side with your planes; and as we speak today, we still have hundreds of soldiers deployed in Kabul. Only two countries are training the new armies of Afghanistan: The United States and France.

When we started the negotiation on Iraq, I knew it would be difficult. But, with my dear colleague John Negroponte, after eight weeks of hard work, we adopted -unanimously again- a resolution which was the result of the wonderful speech delivered by President Bush on the 12th of September last year. And thanks to his determination, the whole UN membership was determined to send back the inspectors in Iraq and to impose disarmament to the Iraqi leadership, if possible, peacefully, if not, by force.

To come back to the first question What went wrong_ How come we worked together during this negotiation and then the Council split_

First, you have to know that we are not a pacifist country and we considered the participation of French troops if the Security Council were to decide to use force. A French general came to Washington to pass the message that we were considering a very strong participation. At that moment - it was mid-December - we were together. In my view, what went wrong is first that everybody was expecting a big mistake from Saddam Hussein. For one good reason, when he had an occasion to make a big mistake, usually you could count on him. He attacked Iran, he attacked Kuwait, he ousted the inspectors, so everybody was pretty confident that he would do it again. Maybe because he was scared to death, he was very cautious this time - no mistakes.

The second thing which was expected was what we called "the smoking gun." I participated in Washington in a number of meetings with the CIA and we were cooperating closely to provide intelligence to the inspectors of the UN so that they would find the arms of mass destruction. Unfortunately, again, there was no smoking gun.

And the third reason to explain what went wrong is maybe the deployment of American troops. We were all in agreement that this deployment was a good idea -even a necessity- because it was adding to the political pressure on the Iraqi leadership the pressure of the presence around Iraq of all these troops. But then, things started to go wrong. How_ Well, slowly, the build-up went beyond fifty thousand, one hundred thousand, two hundred thousand, and at that time, maybe because he was scared, Saddam Hussein not only continued to cooperate in a passive way, opening the doors to the inspectors, but he started to accept real disarmament and you've seen on the screens of your networks the destruction of the missiles Al-Samoud by the Iraqi army at the request of Hans Blix and the inspectors. So for a majority of the members of the Security Council, this was real disarmament. We said thank you President Bush and thank you for the leadership role of the United States and the presence of its army around Iraq because it triggers the peaceful disarmament of Iraq. It works.
But, in Washington, the mood was quite different. I heard that a draft resolution was prepared, a draft resolution to authorize the use of force. And, upon instructions from my president, President Chirac, I went to the White House, and I said "Don't table a draft resolution" because President Bush said time and again that there was no need for a second resolution because on the basis of the existing resolution, the view was in Washington was that the United States had enough authority to go to war if need be. Our view in Paris was that if in Washington the decision had been made to go to war, for us, it was a mistake. But at least - at least - let's do what we did in Kosovo when we were under the threat of the vetoes of Russia and China and we said, "Let's agree to disagree as gentlemen", and "let's not put to a vote a second resolution. We have enough authority to go to war and we'll be together again with our Russian and Chinese partners after the war to rebuild Kosovo." Unfortunately, this message was not accepted because Tony Blair needed a second resolution and I said, "Look, if Tony Blair needs a second resolution and you don't get the nine votes, it's even worse for Tony Blair." I am going into the details of this long negotiation to show that we didn't want this fight in the Security Council. It was not necessary in our view - we could have prevented it - it just happened.

Now, why were we - and still are - against this war_
Well, as I said, with the majority of the members of the council, we considered that the peaceful disarmament of Iraq was underway and it worked.
Secondly, we considered that to decide to go to war at that moment was, in terms of international law, to adopt a preemptive principle. It was a war of choice, it was a war of preemption, and in our view, it sets a very dangerous precedent, which has already been mentioned by the Foreign Minister of India - I know that the Consul General of India is with us tonight - and it is true that India has been attacked by Islamic terrorists in Kashmir and a war of preemption could be a temptation for India against Pakistan. For us, what was at stake was really an important question of principle. But beyond that, I published in the New York Times on the 14th of February an op-ed which was called "On Iraq, a Friendly Warning from a Friend", which underlined that the war could have consequences, long-term consequences, in Iraq because Iraq is a very difficult country, a violent society with no tradition of democracy, and so to rebuild Iraq is certainly a long-term condition, and a very difficult one to implement. Beyond Iraq, we were anticipating difficulties throughout the Arab world, because, as we know, the peace process was -and still is- at a stalemate. And beyond this difficult situation, we were anticipating, and I underlined that in my op-ed in the New York Times mid-February, more recruitment for Al-Qaeda, and more terrorist attacks in the Middle East and elsewhere. These were the reasons why we thought it would have been better to continue the peaceful disarmament of Iraq through the UN inspections.

Now, the war is over, and as I learned in New York, let's think positive, let's think positive for Iraq.
We have to be together to rebuild Iraq and I'm delighted with the outcome of the negotiations and the vote which took place in the Security Council. You know that this resolution has been adopted with fourteen votes in favor and France was able to vote in favor because there was flexibility and good will on both sides. This time we are together and looking to the future together.
But beyond Iraq, let's not forget what we have to do together as two friends.
When I presented my credentials to President Bush, on the 9th of December, he said that he personally considers that France is the best ally of the United States in the fight against terror. And for one good reason- we have suffered a lot from Islamist terror, from Al- Qaeda in France and we have a lot of experience to share and we share all our intelligence with the CIA, the FBI, and the different American agencies. It goes without saying, as two friends, and two partners. If we don't succeed together, we will lose- you and us. We have to fight this war against terror together, and we have to eradicate the scourge of terror together. We are together in Afghanistan, we have exactly the same view on North Korea, we share the same analysis with the United States on the Middle East peace process, we are together in Jakarta. And so on and so forth.

Let me say one word now about the trans-atlantic relations because I read in the papers that it's been damaged by what happened in New York on Iraq. I'm optimistic about the trans-atlantic relations for one or two good reasons. Together, we represent the two pillars of the world's democracies. We share the same values, and if we want to spread these values throughout the world, starting with Iraq, but if possible beyond Iraq, it goes without saying that we have to do it together. And we are also together, the two pillars of the world economy. The United States and the European Union represent 62 percent of the world GDP. 62 percent! Each day, you have three billion dollars of goods, services, and investments crossing the Atlantic both ways. Three billion dollars a day. But at the same time, we must recognize that we represent only 11 percent of the world population. 5 percent for the United States and 6 percent for the European Union. So if we are not together, we will do and achieve nothing. If we are together, then we are really the engine of the world. And that's exactly what we will do, I hope, when our leaders will meet in two days time in Evian, France, for the G8 summit.
I read from time to time in the press that France is set to destroy NATO, to curb American power, and so on and so forth. This is simply not true. About NATO, I was a diplomatic advisor as it was said earlier, for five years, to President Chirac and his first initiative, as a Gaullist president, was to start a negotiation to have France again as a full member of NATO. You have to know that today, as we speak, France is the number one contributor of troops to NATO operations. Before the U.S., before the U.K., before Germany or Italy or Spain. We are not against NATO. We are in favor of a strong trans-atlantic bond of friendship and security.
NATO will remain the cornerstone of France security. But we think that we must do better to build a European defense. What is the problem_ It's not too much military might on this side of the Atlantic. In the dangerous world where we are, we need a strong military power in the United States. The problem is that in Europe we don't do enough for our defense. We must put more money, and that's what France will do together with the U.K., and we must integrate better our forces. I read in the press from time to time that "yes, okay, maybe, but France is in favor of a multi-power world. That's the proof that France is against the United States." Not at all. In economic terms the world is already a multi-polar world. You have the United States, you have the European Union as a pole, but you have also Japan, China emerging, maybe tomorrow India, maybe tomorrow Brazil. It works! Trans-Atlantic relations are a wonderful proof that you can have two poles working together, side by side, for the better.
In military terms, the world is unipolar, we all know that, and it could remain so for a very long period. The ambition of the European Union is suddenly not to compete with the United States. What we want to achieve is to be in a position to solve the problem of Europe next door, as we should have done for Bosnia and Kosovo. It is a pity to note that the Europeans were not in a position to solve the Bosnia and Kosovo issues without the United States. It's not a normal situation. We have to do better for the European defense. So I think that we can be optimistic about the future of the trans-Atlantic relations. The basis is sound, and the determination to stay together is there.

One word in conclusion about the French-American relations. Edward mentioned the statues of Lafayette and Rochambeau, I can confirm they still are in Lafayette square, and we have no plan, and I don't think the U.S. administration has any plans to remove them. And yes, we will never forget that the U.S. saved us twice last century, and on the eve of this memorial day weekend and a few days before the 6th of June, D-Day for all the French people, let me say from the bottom of my heart America- Thank you. If we are a free people, it is thanks to you. Thanks to all those who sacrificed their lives for the freedom of the French people, for the freedom of Europe. We will never forget. You wanted the French people to be free, well, we are a free people, and when we disagree as two friends, we say loud and clear that we disagree. That's the life of democracies. Is it a crime_ I don't think so. On Iraq we disagreed strongly, and I must recognize that France has a special talent of being very visible in the way we express our disagreement. But thank God we were not alone. At the Security Council, 11 members out of 15 were sharing our view, and all over the world a number of countries expressed the same disagreement. Let's think about the future. Let's think about what we have to do. You have to know that President Bush and President Chirac were on the phone again today. It was a very positive conversation. They prepared Evian together, where they will meet in a few days time, and on that basis I think that the mood will be more positive. I hope that together they will decide to turn this bitter page of the last few months and that our friendship will be there as it should be.
Thank you very much.

Questions and Answers:

Question: Commercial and economics interests in Iraq and how this has influenced France's position on going to war, given its contractual relations and economic commercial relations with Iraq.

Answer:

Well, I'm delighted to have the opportunity to give you some figures because I read in the press quite often that France was interested in maintaining its commercial trade with Iraq. You have to know that for France, Iraq is certainly not the major partner. The U.S. certainly is a major economic partner, but certainly not Iraq. We are not the first partner of Iraq, before the war we were not the second or third partner of Iraq. If you look at the figures, either from the UN statistics or the IMF statistics, you will discover, maybe with surprise, that France was before the war the 13th economic partner of Iraq. And Iraq represented 0.2 of our trade. 0.2 percent! You may say "yes, yes, but there is oil." Okay. Let's look at the figures on oil. Our imports of Iraqi oil represented only 8 percent of the Iraqi oil exports. The U.S. imported before the war 56 percent of the Iraqi oil exports. So by far the U.S. was the number one importer of Iraqi oil exports, and we were probably the number nine or ten. I could continue with this list. I think it is unfair to say that France was interested only in economic interests when it was a question of principle, it was a question of international law. It was a question of peace and war, and not a question of oil. We don't consider that if this war took place, it was because of Iraqi oil, we don't accuse the United States of being interested in Iraqi oil. I think that if the United States went to war, it's because of your judgement on the security of the United States. We disagreed also on this issue because we didn't see any imminent threat for the security of France or other European countries. We have never seen any evidence of a connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. We didn't see the threat of imminent use of arms of mass destruction, but we respect the decision of President Bush. He is the one who decides where is the threat for the American people, and we have never said that this war in Iraq was a war about oil. So please don't say that our position was because of oil. And by the way, if we were interested in the Iraqi oil, don't you think that we would have jumped in the bandwagon of war_ To participate in the reconstruction of Iraq_

Question: There are many questions that we've received on France's role on the post conflict situation in Iraq and the reconstruction of Iraq and whether France should have a role or not have a role because of its stance on the war itself. But one question that reoccurs is what is France's policy and proposal toward rebuilding in Iraq_ What would your government want to do in Iraq at this point_

Answer:

The question has been solved through the negotiation which has just been concluded in the Security Council. The first draft resolution which was proposed by the U.S. government, in our view didn't give enough role to the United Nations. But there was a good negotiation, and now we have a good balance and the UN, and all the members of the UN will be in a position to play a role. It's very important, it's important not to give the impression that in a way the U.S. and the U.K. are alone to rebuild Iraq. It's good, much better to have the whole international community involved, and that's exactly what we decided when we adopted the resolution. But beyond that, let me stress that, in our view, the reconstruction of Iraq is not a pie to be shared. It's a burden, it's a huge burden and I would say that the choice is yours in a way. Do you want to have the taxpayers in this country to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq or do you want the international community to participate_ Nobody knows exactly how much it will cost, but probably it will be between 10 and 20 billion dollars a year for many, many years. So the question is, who will pay_ And we are ready to participate.

Question: Several questions on what you mentioned, Mr. Ambassador, on the next G8 meeting in Evian. Do you believe President Bush will take advantage of the next G8 meeting in Evian to face the cameras with Jacques Chirac, Putin, and Schroeder, and to let the world know that we need to put our relations back on the track_

Answer:

As the French Ambassador to the U.S., I hope that it will be a moment of reconciliation and that's exactly what we want in Paris. In fact there have been a number of contacts at different levels and the mood in Paris is "Let's turn this bitter page." We have better things to do than to continue to argue about what happened in the past. Let's think positive as I said. Let's focus on the challenges which are in front of us. And when we see the resurgence of Al-Qaeda today, it is quite obvious that our number one priority is to fight it together. To crush these networks and to do whatever possible to bring peace to the Middle East. To rebuild Iraq, yes, but also to give a boost to the peace process and beyond. And that will be the key message from the G8 in Evian. To give a boost to the world economy, because in this country the economy is simply flat. And that is the same situation in Europe, in Japan, and so we have also to join forces to send the world a very simple message-We want to give a boost to the economy, the world economy, we want to see growth back in the U.S., in Europe, or in Japan if possible in 2003. So that's the spirit with which President Chirac will greet President Bush.

Question: Ambassador, how do you reconcile France's very activist military role in Africa with its stance against the war in Iraq_

Answer: As I said, France is not a pacifist country. We've decided to put a lot more money in our defense, we have decided to do whatever possible to build a stronger European defense within the context of a transformed NATO. We have troops in Afghanistan, we have troops in Bosnia, in Kosovo. We have troops in different places in Africa, and you have to know that today we work hand in hand with the United States to try to bring back peace in Cote d'Ivoire. And we don't want to do it alone. We have 4,000 troops in Cote d'Ivoire, the Ivory Coast, but we wanted to have the backing of the UN and already three resolutions have been adopted by the Security Council to back, endorse, our effort. And we wanted also to have African troops with us. And we have now a number of African countries from the ECOWAS Organization, the regional organization of West Africa, working hand in hand with us to support the peace process in the Ivory Coast. And I must attribute to the wonderful American support that we have received since the beginning of the difficult days in the Ivory Coast when there was an attempted coup against an elected president, President Gbagbo. It's another good example of the wonderful partnership between the United States and France.

Question: The French Foreign Ministry has issued a statement about false information being circulated in the United States media regarding France, and you of course have made statements and written an op-ed. Would you like to comment on this press play_

Answer:

Yes, we are two old democracies, and in democracies it is very important to have a lively debate. As I said, we disagreed, and we disagreed in strong terms. But what is important also is to maintain a fair debate and that's where I had a problem because time and time again I saw repeatedly printed in the American media a number of so-called "information" which was simply lies. The last one was that France had provided passports to the Iraqi leadership to help them flee Iraq at the very moment that the regime was crumbling. It's so obvious that it is a lie that we though maybe it's not necessary to deny it, but we immediately denied it because when it is on the TV networks, millions of Americans think it's true. And we were accused also to have maintained in France stocks of smallpox, as if we wanted to use bio-terrorism to do…to do what_ We were accused to have provided arms to Iraq at the very moment the war was starting. This is simply a lie. And the problem was also that these lies were printed on the basis of information provided by "anonymous sources" within the U.S. administration. And all this contributed a lot to the destruction of the image of my country. And it created a lot of anxiety among the 300,000 French living in this country. And so it was important, yes, for the future of our friendship to say quite clearly that we may disagree, as friends, France cannot accept to see its image destroyed by snipers providing false information to the media because it not only destroys the image of France, but it fuels in France anti-American feelings. Because you have in the French press a lot of articles about this disinformation campaign. And so we were kind of in a vicious circle. So yes, I took the unusual initiative to send to roughly 200 Senators and Congressmen and journalists a letter with eight specific examples of lies with my denials which were not taken into account and my hope is that this campaign for a couple of snipers will stop. If it doesn't stop, my hope is that the newspapers will be very cautious next time before they print these lies and they will give us the opportunity to tell them what we think about these "informations," and beyond that, I must say that a number of Senators and Congressmen have told me "you've been right to defend the image of France. But now you should do even more, and you should explain what France is doing with the United States in positive terms ," and that's exactly what I'm doing tonight, and that's exactly what I continue to do in Washington and throughout the United States because our friendship is a treasure, and it must protected, it must be preserved, it must be enhanced.

Question: I've gotten several questions here from students and others about genetically modified foods, and France's position banning genetically modified foods, so can you explain the position of France on, what I have in front of me, GM food_

Answer:

Yes, what we call in Europe, not only in France, Frankenstein food. In fact, you have to know that French people have a kind of religious link with what we eat, and when they are scared by what they see on their plates, it's a national tragedy. And that's the experience we had two times in the past few years. First we had the contaminated blood scandal in France, where a number of people, thousands and thousands of people, got AIDS through injection of contaminated blood. It was a national tragedy for the French people. Thousand of people died in France because of that, and the second tragedy was not French, it was a European tragedy, and it was more a British tragedy than a French tragedy; it's Mad Cow Disease. You have to know that throughout Europe it was a disaster. Millions of cows have been exterminated because of this danger, this dangerous disease. And probably hundreds of thousands of people will die in the United Kingdom, in France, in years because we got this disease and we don't know if we have it or not because it will take years before we know for sure. So we had to be very cautious when we discussed GM food, not because we are suspicious, but simply because if we try to impose genetically modified food, despite the reluctance of European consumers to absorb it, we will simply fail. If our European leaders, Tony Blair or Jacques Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder were to decide that we will now eat GM food, people would simply refuse. So what we have to do is first to ask the scientists their view about this matter, and that's exactly what our National Science Academy did, and it was positive. Done. Second, what we have to do is traceability and labeling, and if we do it I am pretty confident that in a few months time, the moratorium that has been decided by the European commission will be lifted, and that people slowly will accept to eat GM food as you do, as I do, in the United States, and I survived. And we will all survive, and the Europeans will survive, but we have to rebuild confidence in what we eat. It was destroyed. It's a slow process because what is at stake is the particularities of not only French people but European people.