CHAPTER FOURTEEN

Taking control of our destiny

We are deeply immersed in the world — whether we like it or not. Millions of French people live and travel abroad. We have French territories on almost every continent. Our language is spoken in every corner of the planet.

And the world also comes to us: tens of millions of tourists visit our country each year. Two million French citizens are employed by the 20,000 foreign companies located in France. What is more, the work of millions of our compatriots is directly linked with globalisation — Airbus in Toulouse, helicopter production in Marseille, turbines in Belfort, and undersea cables in Calais. These firms all serve foreign clients. We depend on globalisation.

Our key challenges today are global: terrorism, migration, and so the list goes on. Obviously, we share the same planet, which ought to mean that we work together to preserve biodiversity and address climate change. The transformations under way will have direct consequences for us and our children. If we fail to take collective action, the ensuing disease and conflict will gradually destroy our planet: our most precious shared asset.

So it is clear that we cannot remain oblivious to the world — for we are part and parcel of it. Our international efforts are a prerequisite for taking control of our destiny, now that we are so inextricably linked with others.

Actually, France has never thought of itself without thinking of others. Sometimes, this leads them to view us with irritation. On the other hand, it also explains why, when France expresses no opinion on a certain subject, our neighbours and partners ask: “But what is France doing? What does France say?” The French dream has always been at the same time a universal dream. Our thinking has always been on a global scale. France is one of the few countries to take action when Christians in the Middle East are threatened, or to protest for the survival of Benghazi, or to become indignant over the martyrs of Aleppo or at crimes committed in Timbuktu.

Over time, this cultivated the belief that our country had a vocation to shine a light on the way of the world, to be the bearers of a universal humanist message, inviting all others to follow our example and to form links with our people, our model, and our values. Today’s globalisation suits us less well. It sometimes fails to correspond to our values — which in turn leads us to be distrustful, and tempts us to close our doors. We may be troubled by a temptation to withdraw and to desert others. I understand these fears and misapprehensions. I hear anger, too, about the way the world is going. But I believe that France cannot continue to be France if it leaves its role in the world by the wayside.

First and foremost, we have a history. We are a former colonial power with roots in every continent. We have a language spoken by 275 million people, and a special relationship with the African continent and the Middle East.

We are an international, maritime, diplomatic, and military power. We are one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — and will be the only member from the European Union once Brexit has been completed. We have nuclear weapons, and are capable of dispatching armed forces all over the world. This inevitably leads us to play a role. However, it also means that we need to demonstrate the highest levels of responsibility. It is for this reason that I recommend that our intervention should be situated within the scope of United Nations mandates. It is both more effective and more in line with our historic view of multilateralism. It guarantees us a balance that no temporary alliance could provide.

Because we have a duty to serve as an example. If France had such influence in the past, it was because it was respected as an independent, non-aggressive country, a country which at that time benefited from a great deal of tangible popularity all over the world. This was the case, for example, when we refused to go to war in Iraq with George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Today, however, France’s image is somewhat tarnished. Many of our controversies are misunderstood and have changed the way people see us. Our presence in Mali is regarded with mistrust by much of the African youth, while interventions in Libya and the Sahel have been opposed.

I would like us to come together and agree that a degree of realism is now needed. We cannot devise international strategies independently of what we are doing at home. I am struck by the fact that our international public voice has remained the same, despite the fact that our situation has changed. We are asking others to believe that we have the means to carry out financial and military interventions all over the world. Are we being realistic? Can we continue to make proposals, to pontificate, and even reprimand, as if our finances were in order, as if our interventions were always crowned with success, as if our leaders were popular and our reputation intact? It leaves us open to dangers, misconceptions, and errors that sometimes occupy the realms of the ridiculous. In order to take effective action, we first of all need to be coherent.

At the other extreme, too many have brushed aside the very idea of France having its own unique and relevant position. Because they regard France as being old-fashioned, unable to recover, or condemned to fade away in the midst of the European Union or NATO. Those voices are wrong, too. We must continue to brandish our special conception of freedom, humanity, justice, and honour all over the globe. But we cannot do this without being realistic — without at the same time making the efforts to be rigorous, efficient, and moral that we keep asking the rest of the world to make.

This is also why our action, without being diminished, should in my view be far more integrated into the European framework, in particular through an indispensable strategic dialogue with Germany.

We must also set more exacting standards for ourselves — and that includes being less partisan. For too long, we have appeared to focus on our own interests, such as the sale of weapons or the profits of tour operators, rather than on the needs of those countries we purport to support. Or to assuage our consciences by ignoring those needs completely.

We have supported dictatorships and inept regimes — and we continue to do so — despite the fact that they are utterly contrary to our values.

France must retain the special and independent position that enables it to enter into constructive dialogue with others. The very nature of diplomacy is to be able to have discussions with those with whom we might disagree. However, that dialogue must not cause us to sacrifice our values, take the easy way out, or be complacent. Although realism is indispensable, principles are just as important, and a degree of modesty would do us no harm.

We would also benefit from examining, in as objective a way as possible, French military operations in the last twenty years. Parliament only does this when forced to do so by scandal or rising emotions. Despite this, I am convinced that there is a place for carrying out a thorough assessment and a rational review of both overarching policies and of processes.

Coming back to the present, and taking control of our destiny, I see the key issue as our external security and the need to combat our enemy, ISIS, by directing all means at our disposal against the risks it represents. Terrorism and radical political Islamism are flourishing on our borders to the east and to the south. Our diplomatic and military action must therefore be focused on maintaining security in North Africa and the Mediterranean in the face of regional crises.

The current priority is to make headway against the Islamic state on the ground, in Mosul and Raqqa, amongst other places. To prevent any massacre of civilians, as we saw in Aleppo. To stabilise the region, and in particular Lebanon, a country so close to French hearts and so often marked by war and exile. Our presence is completely necessary and fully justified. However, here too our action should form part of a clear mandate from the United Nations.

Nevertheless, in these countries, military conflict can only be resolved if we can reach a political solution, even if it is a temporary one. I have strong reservations about whether armed conflict is appropriate when launched with no political options in place in the country concerned — we have paid a high price for this in the last fifteen years in situations such as Iraq or Libya. France and its European partners must be vigilant in this respect when dealing with all current and future crises.

In Syria, France shouldered its responsibilities in diplomatic and military terms, but has been gradually isolated, for various reasons, in particular by the Russians and the Americans, while Turkey, Iran, and a number of Gulf states each defended their own interests. It is by reaching a fair balance among all parties that peace can be re-established there. Here, the German position could be an example to us, and we will gain much if we act in clear concert with that country.

Regarding Libya, I have serious concerns. The country has supplied all those who, in the Sahel, pledged allegiance to ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Weakened on other fronts, ISIS is now attempting to make Libya its home base. It is from this country, too, that most refugees and migrants leave for Europe. It would be very grave indeed if Libya were to be taken by the terrorists: first of all, for the local populations; next, because it would increase migrant pressure on the European continent. It would offer ISIS financial reserves, in particular those generated from crude-oil production, on the eastern borders of Libya. Lastly, it would threaten neighbouring countries, in particular Tunisia — a fragile democracy that has played a significant trailblazing role since the Arab Spring. It is for this reason that I was determined to make my first international visit as leader of En Marche! to Tunisia. European diplomatic action, hand in hand with regional allies, is needed in Libya. We must also understand the importance of working with Algeria and Egypt, who in this case have the same interests as ourselves, both in the short and medium terms.

For these reasons, North African and Mediterranean politics need to be repositioned to form the very hub of our diplomacy. We must reclaim our historical role and our freedom of action, and we must be able to maintain exacting but continuing relationships with all actors in this region. With Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the relationship should be political as well as economic, and all subjects — including support by these countries or their citizens for organisations that destabilise the region — must be broached.

At the same time, Iran should be supported in its more open business agenda and its return to the international arena — provided, of course, that it respects, to the letter, the 2015 agreement on its nuclear program. Because in the future, if Iran were to equip itself with nuclear weapons, the entire non-proliferation policy would be called into question. The other countries in the region — Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and so on — would then wish to follow the same route. It is therefore essential to help Iran understand that it can be a great power in the future without taking a military path. It could succeed by first imposing itself as an economic power, with a great capacity to wield influence and an important peacekeeping role.

As for Israel, it remains a diplomatic and economic ally. It is a democracy, and we must ensure that it is protected. However, at the same time, we know that lasting peace involves the recognition of a Palestinian state. Colonisation policies are an error, and we must return to the spirit of the Oslo Accords. France raised concerns by voting first in favour of and then abstaining from a UNESCO resolution that emphasised Muslim connections with these holy sites and that denied Jerusalem’s historic links with Judaism. In fact, France should have defended respect for all religions, and called for peaceful coexistence among them. What is happening in Jerusalem today is, in fact, the very opposite of this. We must therefore extricate ourselves from the historical debate about holy sites, rather than being hemmed in by the entrenched positions that many would like us to take.

With respect to these powers and in particular Turkey, France would gain much from taking a more strongly European approach. In the case of Turkey, it is clear that the attraction of the European model is the only counterbalance that can prevent the Turkish regime from moving towards authoritarianism and calling into question political freedoms. Turkey must not stray from Europe on security, geographical, or economic issues, taking into account its capacity to stabilise the area. But we must not be naive, because Erdogan’s regime does not allow us that luxury.

North Africa, of course, stands apart in view of our history with Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. Millions of our compatriots come from these countries, and have strong links with them. We must not forget this. We must fully acknowledge our shared past, and build a future together. We face the same challenges, whether they relate to security, economics, or to the environment. Many of these issues need to be discussed as part of a Europe-Mediterranean dialogue.

It would no doubt be unrealistic to think that we could forge a joint Mediterranean policy, but it would be a mistake not to see that we are bound by a common destiny.

All of these countries are subject to the many risks of being destabilised, and we would suffer the first and very direct consequences if they were.

Similarly in Africa, France must continue to play the role that it has taken on in recent years in that continent, whether in Ivory Coast, the Central African Republic, or Mali. I see our military intervention in Ivory Coast under the United Nations mandate as a good example, and I deplore the fact that we left the Central African Republic, as the situation is not yet stabilised there. It is highly likely that we will be obliged to go back there in the next few years. The army’s intervention in Mali was immensely useful, because it enabled that country to be saved from jihadism. On that subject, I would like to pay homage to our soldiers who are fighting in very difficult conditions.

Plainly, our role in Africa, in close cooperation with African armies and regional organisations, is to stabilise fragile zones. It is for this reason that the European Union has played a valuable role in coordinating military-training operations. However, in this corner of the globe we must also offer our support to countries who choose to take the route of openness and democracy. Because, as we know, Africa has great potential for economic success, and mutual cooperation should be stepped up in that regard.

Taking into account current French commitments — rather overstretched — and potential risks, it is clear that France must maintain influential diplomacy, an active network on the ground, and a modern and high-performing military apparatus. The army’s numbers should not be reduced in the next few years, even after disengagement from Operation Sentinel has been decided upon. We must go further, and at the same time keep clearly in mind dissuasive tactics, which must be maintained whatever the cost, because they constitute our ultimate protection.

Our international security depends very much on American and Russian strategic choices. We have seen that Russia is playing an increasing role in the Middle East, and, since the Second World War, the United States has made this region the main theater of its intervention, which has benefited us more than once.

What relationship do we want to have with the Russians, our fellow Europeans? Do we want to go back to a seventy-year regime of out-and-out conflict, as we had during the Cold War? Do we really want to pursue the rather confused and conflicted relationship, currently characterised by a form of confrontation, with this major power?

We need to go back to the drawing board in our relationship with Russia. We cannot under any circumstances follow the Americans blindly (whatever happens following the election of Donald Trump), as the European Union has been more or less compelled to do for several months now. Nor can we connive with a reprehensible regime, a position preferred by some individuals on the French Right.

For my part, I will work towards an intense and frank dialogue between us. We will not solve the problem of the Crimea in the short term. But we must work with the Russians to stabilise their relationship with Ukraine, and enable sanctions to be lifted gradually on both sides. We must find a way of reaching agreement in the Middle East in order to restore security in the region. Europe must be extremely vigilant to avoid any opportunism on the part of Russia that might see Donald Trump’s election as a sign of the United States’ waning interest in Europe.

We share a continent, as well as a history and even literature, with the Russians. Turgenev lived in France, Pushkin loved our country, and Chekhov and Tolstoy wielded great influence here. Twice, we faced the most terrible conflicts in world history together. At the same time, however, the Russian vision does not correspond completely to our own. It is up to us to take account of this. But we would be mistaken to cut ourselves off from this Eastern European power rather than forging a long-term relationship. In the fight against terrorism and in the energy domain, we have the makings of a productive partnership.

The question of our relationship with the United States is, in this context, more than ever a fundamental one. We are bound together by our defense of human rights and the same interests in world stability. Much was at stake during the elections in November 2016 that saw Donald Trump become president. No one can predict the consequences of that election, but it has to be admitted that the Obama years were marked by a muted tension with Europe, which escalated during the Syrian crisis.

Under President Obama, Asia was a stronger priority than Europe for the United States. This was a major repositioning in comparison to previous policies, and we are only just beginning to realise the potential consequences for us if that strategy were to be pursued by the new American administration.

Similarly, the United States is withdrawing from the Middle East and crisis zones, despite the fact that these regions had been one of their key commitments for half a century. The Obama stance in the Middle East was simple: hand responsibility over to local and regional stakeholders, and no longer take the initiative or a key role in the peace process. Following the withdrawal decided upon in Afghanistan and Iraq, as long as there is no direct threat to the United States, the Americans no longer intervene.

Close cooperation is, of course, continuing, and must be maintained. In many operational zones, American intelligence and military support are made available to France. For example, the United States does understand that the Sahel is dangerous and that our cooperation in matters of intelligence in this region is essential.

In any case, there is a need for clarification on both sides of the Atlantic, a re-assessment by the United States and by Europe, as well as a fresh approach and reinvestment. Surveillance has been an unacceptable feature of the relationship. Although it was easy for the authorities concerned to hold that the information was nothing out of the ordinary, it seems to me especially shocking when we consider that the parties in question were heads of state.

So, in the relationship between France and more broadly the European Union, on the one hand, and the United States, on the other, we find ourselves at a crossroads for the future of the planet. Is the Atlantic axis, which structures the West, and has shaped human-rights policy and peace processes since the end of the Second World War, crucial? I deeply believe that it is. However, we need to recalibrate our relationship, in view of the fact that it is so important in determining our capacity to protect our compatriots. At the time of writing, American political life has taken a new direction with the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States. Nobody knows what his first decisions will be. I know at the very least that, like his predecessors, those decisions will be constrained by realities. It is up to us to ensure that our ideas prevail. It is also up to us to take full measure of this global change.

As a result, now more than ever, we must build a ten-year European diplomatic and military strategy. Western Europe will need to stand alone more and more often in order to defend itself. We must, therefore, as one of the leading military powers in Europe, work with our European partners — not only Germany, but also the United Kingdom, which, in this field, and taking into account our links, still remains a strategic partner. Faced with risks from neighbouring countries in the region, and in view of the new positions and uncertainties concerning Russia and the United States, we need to organise our collective security in a more independent manner.

In order to take control of our destiny, our second area of action must be all of our trade, economic, and cultural initiatives in the rest of the world. This is crucial to enabling France and Europe to have real influence, and to avoid the setbacks that can sometimes affect our country, so that our artists, our schools, our companies, and our ideas can shine all around the world.

We possess great strengths in this regard, and we have an exceptional diplomatic network to rely on. Here, I must express a conviction that goes against the choices that have been made for many years now. It is at all times more important to maintain our stock markets, our cultural centers, and our schools than to maintain diplomatic jobs. Of course, maintaining a diplomatic network is indispensable, but here, too, we could develop a more European approach, while our cultural influence would be our own domain. And it is culture that makes the French presence in a country stand out.

When I visited Tunisia, I was struck by discussions I had with political and cultural leaders. Their models were all French. They had a perfect command of the French language. Their cherished memories were stolen moments with French artists, writers, and filmmakers.

Nevertheless, I am fully aware of the damage caused over the last fifteen years by the withdrawal from policies that foster the Francophone culture, and by the lack of interest in promoting artists abroad. France betters itself and the world when its culture shines. When it supports and promotes its language and linguistic diversity. When it grants scholarships to students from every continent. When it allows people thousands of kilometres away, in the middle of another continent, to have a taste of France — in a spirit of exchange, curiosity, and mutual dialogue. Because the bonds built in this way, between the French people and our partners worldwide, are so many ramparts against ignorance and even barbarism, so many ties between these faraway citizens and ourselves.

And here I see Africa as a continent full of promise, where we must reassert and redeploy our ambitions.

Our presence cannot be limited to military and political action. We must now go further, and enable entrepreneurs and the middle classes to prosper throughout Africa. This will be the best way to stabilise African democracies in the long term. In this regard, the work carried out in 2013 by Hubert Védrine, Lionel Zinsou, Hakim El Karoui, Jean-Michel Severino, and Tidjane Thiam is still very relevant. It forms the nucleus of the strategic action that I want to be able to put in place on this continent. Traditionally, our economic presence in Africa has been built up in close collabouration with governments, in sectors such as commodities and infrastructure. It has developed with a lack of transparency that has prevented corruption from being addressed effectively on either side, and has prevented the majority of Africans from benefiting from the positive effects of the relationship.

Today, a new business elite is emerging, which is acting as a driver for the middle classes and indeed the whole population in these African countries. By building trust with this new generation, we must strengthen our relations with Africa in a balanced way in the coming decade, without any trace of condescending behavior.

I am not going to give an exhaustive list here of every country with whom we have historical links, unique bonds, cultural exchanges, or special trade or industrial relationships. They range from Brazil to Argentina, through Colombia and Chile, from Japan to South Korea, not forgetting China and India. In the midst of transformation, India is strengthening its many ties with France, as it is with Australia — with whom we ourselves have just signed important agreements.

China, of course, occupies a special place on that list. It is a great power that is about to become the world’s leading economy. Many of our compatriots know very little about China. They still see it as the world’s factory, as a place for low-cost manufacturing. They see it as being responsible for the relocation of factories and the deindustrialisation of France. But China is much more than that, which is why we need to change our perspective. Far from being considered a peril, China can represent an opportunity, if we provide ourselves with the means to seize it.

France has the capability, with its companies, to address the considerable challenges that China is facing (urban development, energy needs, combating pollution). Long-standing partnerships already exist, such as in the nuclear domain.

We can make use of the special ties that bind us: the Chinese leadership has never forgotten that France was the first Western country to recognise the People’s Republic of China.

However, to succeed in this ever-evolving globalisation, we need Europe. In the last thirty years, the world has changed profoundly. France has, in some ways, diminished in size. New economic powers and business powers have emerged. The best way of defending our preferences and our values is therefore to have an effective European policy. And, in particular, a common trade policy. Only Europe can negotiate with China or the United States credibly and effectively. On this subject, I do not think that in future years the negotiations underway with the United States concerning a free-trade treaty will progress. On the other hand, we would benefit from deploying a proactive trade strategy and initiating discussions with the Asia-Pacific region so that we avoid leaving the Americans to act as the arbiter. The European Union is also a regulatory space where we need to place a focus on digital matters, and ensure that our preferences are taken into account, whether they concern the use of commercial or financial data, or the protection of privacy.

The third strand of action concerns our civilisation. We have to rethink humanism for our times. I am convinced that the globalised world is synonymous with opportunities for many people. However, at the same time, globalisation has been debased by the excesses of financial capitalism that our nation-states can no longer regulate. The Bretton Woods compromise, which, after the Second World War, enabled financial regulations to be put in place in order to create a sorely needed new financial and monetary balance, won the day. The G20, an international group bringing together the twenty largest world economies, resuscitated after the 2008 financial crisis, has not really reined in these aberrations.

Today, on the other hand, our global form of capitalism produces more inequalities than have ever been created in our developed countries. Since the 1980s, it has been the middle classes in Western economies who have been sacrificed the most in this historic change. Initially, the new elite and the middle classes in emerging economies benefited from the growth of their economies; but during the last twenty-five years, the richest 1 per cent of the population have accumulated more and more wealth.

International capitalism no longer regulates itself. Worse still, the institutions created to address the problem have not been of any benefit. And so, whether in the case of financial crises, or those sacrificed by globalisation, the victims of climate change or the destruction of biodiversity, France must fight to enable us to anticipate, to prevent issues from arising, to contribute to changing international rules, and render this contemporary capitalism more human.

I do not know whether we will succeed. I do not know whether this form of capitalism is on the verge of being condemned by the very reason of its excesses. However, I am convinced that France must take its rightful place in this essential undertaking — ensuring that human values prevail in globalisation. France has every reason to succeed: its history, its principles, its strengths … Beyond the environmental combat, France must fight to step up international regulation, apply rules to grey financing, continue to regulate financial executives’ remuneration worldwide, and fly the flag of social and environmental responsibility. This undertaking must be global if we want it to be effective. It would be illusory to imagine that we could wage this war alone. The G20 is the right framework to do this, but France must, along with the European Union, promote a clear and proactive agenda in this area.

I am also convinced that we need to combat tax evasion and tax fraud at a European and global level. The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and the European Union have made great strides in recent years in imposing more transparency. Nevertheless, developments in the digital economy facilitate and even encourage securities transfers and, consequently, questionable practices. Here, too, we need to take strong and clear measures. First of all, by including all countries in the Eurozone in tax convergence in the field of corporate tax. It will take ten to fifteen years, but such convergence is indispensable.

Next, we need to demand that all existing tax agreements between European Union countries and tax havens be renegotiated. Lastly, we need to ensure that all trade agreements are accompanied by tax-cooperation agreements to combat tax evasion and optimisation as the method used to achieve it. Opening up trade is only sustainable, politically speaking, as long as the taxable wealth that is necessary for any redistribution does not evaporate with the movement of capital. The great Western powers will have new leaders by the close of 2017. We need to ensure that by 2020 we can lay down the foundations of new rules for globalisation. This is not a battle to “prevent”, or simply to “preserve”, but a battle against devastating excesses, and for our common future.

In fact, the times we are currently experiencing no doubt constitute a change in the world order. Some people are tempted to see in this the end of the Western heyday; others prefer to view it as a different balance of power. Our sustained response must be to make globalisation more civilised, and to base our action in the heart of a Europe that has become even more indispensable.