Discours M. Douste-Blazy- AJC mai 2005

Monsieur le Président,

Mesdames et Messieurs,

Chers Amis,

Je remercie l’American Jewish Committee et tout particulièrement sa représentante à Paris, Mme Valérie Hoffenberg, d’avoir pris l’initiative de l’organisation du dîner qui nous réunit ce soir. C’est un grand plaisir pour moi de vous rencontrer et, pour certains d’entre vous, de vous retrouver.

Je suis désireux de nouer avec les organisations de la communauté juive américaine les relations les plus étroites. Je serai, dans cet esprit, heureux de recevoir au Quai d’Orsay vos délégations pour poursuivre le dialogue riche et fructueux qui est le nôtre depuis plusieurs années.

Les contacts que notre ambassade à Washington et nos dix consulats généraux aux Etats-Unis entretiennent, dans leurs circonscriptions respectives, avec vos associations, vos organes de presse, vos centres culturels et vos synagogues s’inscrivent également dans cette volonté d’un dialogue sincère, constructif et régulier avec la communauté juive américaine. Merci de tout ce que vous apportez à ce dialogue.

* * *

Je voudrais ce soir d’abord vous rappeler le dispositif mis en place par le gouvernement français pour combattre en France le racisme et l’antisémitisme.

L’antisémitisme est en totale contradiction avec les valeurs de la France et avec les valeurs de la République.

Comme l’a exprimé avec force le pPrésident Chirac, "s’en prendre à un juif, c’est s’en prendre à la France tout entière".

Face à ce fléau, la détermination du gouvernement français est totale.

La création en 2003 du Comité interministériel de lutte contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme, instance de coordination présidé par le Premier ministre, témoigne de l’engagement dans ce combat de l’ensemble du gouvernement.

L’action volontariste du gouvernement français depuis 2002 s’est traduite par un très grand nombre de mesures prises, en concertation étroite avec la communauté juive, dans plusieurs domaines prioritaires : la protection, la répression, l’éducation, les moyens de communication et, enfin, la coopération internationale.

La protection, puisque, dès l’été 2002, nous avons renforcé la sécurisation des établissements de la communauté juive. L’Etat veille également, en liaison avec les communes, à la protection des cimetières.

La répression, dans la mesure où nous avons renforcé notre dispositif législatif en prévoyant que le motif raciste ou antisémite d’une infraction constitue une circonstance aggravante permettant le prononcé d’une sanction plus lourde. Nous avons donné des instructions de grande fermeté aux parquets qui sont invités, le cas échéant, à faire appel de condamnations jugées trop clémentes. Je voudrais rappeler, à titre d’exemple, que l’auteur des graffitis nazis du mémorial de Douaumont a été condamné à deux ans de prison dont un ferme.

L’éducation, parce que nous pensons que l’école est le lieu privilégié de la lutte contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme. Un "livret républicain", inspiré par un idéal de tolérance et de respect mutuel, a fait l’objet d’une large diffusion dans les établissements scolaires. Un dispositif de repérage et de traitement des actes racistes et antisémites en milieu scolaire a été mis en place dans les académies.

Notre approche pédagogique consiste aussi à développer à l’école l’enseignement du fait religieux. Sans renier notre attachement à la laïcité, nous voulons combattre l’inculture religieuse parce que nous entendons développer chez nos enfants un véritable esprit de tolérance fondé sur la connaissance des valeurs et des croyances de l’autre.

L’action du gouvernement concerne également les moyens de communication. Grâce à l’adaptation de notre législation, le Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel a pu, comme vous le savez, interdire, en décembre 2004, la diffusion sur le territoire français de la chaîne Al-Manar en raison de ses programmes à contenu antisémite. Nous avons, de même, interrompu le signal d’Al-Manar vers l’Asie et l’Amérique du Sud qui était relayé par la société Globecast, filiale de France Télécom.

Enfin, le gouvernement poursuit à l’extérieur l’action entreprise en France contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme par la coopération internationale que ce soit avec l’Union européenne, les Nations unies ou l’OSCE. Nous sommes en particulier très attachés à la définition d’un code éthique pour contrecarrer l’utilisation dévoyée d’Internet.

Notre lutte contre l’antisémitisme est donc multiforme. Elle est de tous les instants.

Nous constatons aujourd’hui que notre politique porte ses fruits puisque, comme nous l’avons appris récemment, le nombre d’actes antisémites constatés au cours du premier trimestre 2005 a diminué de près de 50 % par rapport à la même période en 2004. Ce sont les actions violentes qui ont le plus baissé avec trois fois moins de faits constatés en 2005 par rapport à 2004.

Nous devons toutefois rester vigilants et poursuivre nos efforts.

Comme l’ont souligné avec force les autorités françaises lors de la commémoration de la libération des camps et de la fin de la Seconde guerre mondiale, il n’y a pas de place en France pour l’antisémitisme et il n’y a qu’une seule stratégie face au racisme : la tolérance zéro.

Je voudrais conclure sur ce point en rappelant que le gouvernement a installé, en juin dernier, la Haute autorité de lutte contre les discriminations et pour l’égalité (HALDE). Certes, les victimes de discrimination ou les associations pouvaient déjà saisir directement la justice, mais les pouvoirs publics ont voulu aller au devant des victimes en créant une institution qui puisse être saisie par le public ou se saisir elle-même de tous les cas de discrimination. Toutes les discriminations, qu’elles proviennent du racisme, de l’intolérance religieuse, du sexisme, de l’homophobie ou du rejet des handicaps, qu’elles soient constatées lors de la recherche d’un emploi, la demande d’un logement ou dans toute autre circonstance, entrent dans le champ de compétence de la Haute autorité. La HALDE a pour mission d’accompagner une victime d’une discrimination afin de lui permettre d’obtenir réparation. Si son action de médiation échoue, elle a le pouvoir de saisir la justice. Le gouvernement vient ainsi de se doter d’un nouvel instrument pour renforcer l’égalité des chances et, par là-même, favoriser l’intégration de tous à la société française.

* * *

Je voudrais maintenant évoquer brièvement la politique française au Proche-Orient.

Nous avons eu le plaisir de recevoir à Paris, en juillet dernier, le Premier ministre d’Israël, M. Ariel Sharon. Comme tous les observateurs l’ont noté, cette visite a été un très grand succès et s’est déroulée dans une atmosphère particulièrement chaleureuse. M. Sharon a rendu un hommage appuyé à l’action du président de la République. Nous y avons, bien sûr, été très sensibles. Le président Chirac a loué le courage exceptionnel du Premier ministre Sharon engagé dans le processus de retrait de Gaza.

Je me suis moi-même rendu en Israël et dans les Territoires palestiniens la semaine dernière pour examiner les moyens que la France pouvait engager afin de contribuer au développement de Gaza au lendemain du retrait israélien.

S’agissant du Liban, je participerai demain avec Condoleezza Rice à une réunion ministérielle destinée à contribuer à la reconstruction du pays après dans le cadre de la page nouvelle qu’il est en train de tourner.

Sur d’autres dossiers régionaux, vous savez que mon pays est un acteur engagé. Je pense naturellement à l’Iran où nous menons avec nos amis Britanniques et Allemands une négociation difficile sur le dossier nucléaire.

Je suis prêt à répondre à toutes vos interrogations sur ces différents dossiers.

* * *

La lutte résolue contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme, le combat contre les discriminations et pour l’intégration, la promotion d’une éducation de la tolérance et une action internationale au service de la paix, ce sont là des orientations fondamentales de la politique française. Je vous remercie de l’occasion que vous m’avez donnée de vous les présenter ce soir.

La France est certes un vieux pays mais c’est un pays qui agit et qui se modernise, un pays qui s’adapte et qui fait face aux difficultés, pour être sans cesse toujours plus digne d’avoir pour devise : la liberté, l’égalité et la fraternité. Car, comme les idéaux de la Révolution américaine, les idéaux de la Révolution française n’appartiennent pas au passé. Ils nous inspirent aujourd’hui et éclairent notre route.

Je compte sur vous pour faire connaître aux membres de vos organisations respectives l’action de la France sur les sujets que nous venons d’évoquer.

Je vous remercie./.

Présentation AJC

L’ American Jewish Committee est une organisation non gouvernementale et apolitique qui a pour objectifs, la défense des droits de l’Homme, des valeurs démocratiques, du pluralisme, la lutte contre l’antisémitisme et toutes les formes de racisme,

Avec des bureaux dans 33 états des Etats-Unis et 8 bureaux dans le reste du monde, dont 5 en Europe ( Berlin, Genève, Bruxelles, Rome, Varsovie et Paris), l’AJC est l’organisation juive américaine disposant de la plus grande influence sur la scène internationale.

Depuis un siècle, l’AJC est engagée dans le débat public et politique au niveau national et international. L’AJC se mobilise pour garantir le respect des valeurs démocratiques américaines, pour favoriser l’entente interreligieuse, pour préserver et protéger les communautés juives partout dans le monde, et pour soutenir l’Etat d’Israël dans sa volonté de vivre en paix et en sécurité avec ses voisins.

L’AJC travaille à la fois au niveau gouvernemental et au sein de la société civile pour faire entendre sa voix. A l’aide de campagnes médiatiques complètes, l’organisation fait partager sa vision à des millions de personnes.

Ce qu’ils disent de nous…

« L’American Jewish Committee est la doyenne des organisations juives américaines. »

Le New York Times.

« La dévotion de l’American Jewish Committee pour la défense des droits de l’homme n’est qu’une dimension supplémentaire de son travail sacré. »

Elie Wiesel, Prix Nobel de la Paix

« Je ne connais pas d’organisation dans cette ville, dans ce pays ou dans le monde, qui ait fait plus que l’American Jewish Committee pour améliorer les relations entre le Judaïsme et le Christianisme. »

John Cardinal O’Connor, Archevêque de New York (1984-2000).

« L’AJC est un ennemi sophistiqué et formidable des faiseurs de haine partout dans le monde. »

Deborah Lipstadt, Emory University, Professeur d’Etudes de la Shoah.

Nicolas Sarkozy’s Election and Transatlantic Relations: New Challenges and Opportunities

Nicolas Sarkozy’s election as French president on May 6 provoked an unprecedent wave of optimism and high expectations, both in France and abroad. Indeed, probably for the first time during the Fifth Republic, the election offered a real alternative in the foreign policy visions of the two main candidates: Ségolène Royal, the Socialist candidate, paradoxically claiming a strong “continuity” with former center-right leader Jacques Chirac, and Nicolas Sarkozy, advocating a shift toward human rights and democracy promotion (in Chechnya and Darfur) and a more balanced approach to Israel and the United States. Though he vocally opposed the war in Iraq, which he considered to be a “mistake,” Sarkozy has publicly shown his discomfort with the French government’s harsh rhetoric in the debate leading to the war and believes the threat of using its UN veto was inappropriate.

In Washington in September 2006, he expressed his sympathy and solidarity with victims of 9/11 and called for more “constructive” relations, in which disagreements would be solved by frank and friendly dialogue rather than crisis. While on major issues (e.g., Lebanon, the Iranian nuclear crisis), he will continue France’s policy of cooperation with the U.S., a more conciliatory tone is expected. Sarkozy does not believe that Europe has to build itself up as a counterweight to Washington’s influence nor does he seem to consider such institutions as NATO and the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) to be incompatible.

On Iran, Sarkozy takes a tough line, considering the economic sanctions as effective and supporting broader sanctions in the next resolution. He is convinced that the international community must speak with one voice and be united. In an article in the May issue of Politique Internationale, he said that “the prospect of a nuclear Iran is not acceptable; it would be the beginning of a proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region and would be a major threat to Israel and southeastern Europe.... In this perspective, I suggested the creation under UN and AEIA control of a world bank of civil nuclear energy.”

However, on some topics, Sarkozy has not hidden his opposition to U.S. policy: He is especially critical of America’s lack of engagement on climate change, an issue he cares about deeply and mentioned in his acceptance speech. (“France will lead the world on the environment.”) He has made opposition to Turkey’s entry into the EU one of his strongest political points and is likely to be skeptical toward attempts to make NATO a global alliance of democracies. Yet, once again, he does not seem intent on criticizing the U.S. frontally but rather on finding common ground.

Sarkozy’s foreign policy nominees seem to confirm the previous analysis. He surprisingly appointed the popular Socialist figure Bernard Kouchner as his foreign minister. Kouchner, a long-time NGO leader (founder of Doctors without Borders) and human rights activist, is a well-known maverick. He supported the war in Iraq, was the UN-appointed civil administrator in Kosovo, and advocates stronger Western engagement in Darfur. He is regarded as friendly toward Israel and a supporter of close transatlantic relations. Kouchner is, in fact, a very coherent choice because, despite his having been a minister in Socialist governments, his vision on foreign affairs is similar to Sarkozy’s.

The new national security adviser is Jean-David Levitte, a former ambassador to the UN and recently to Washington, whose father was the first director of AJC in France. Very well-appreciated by the U.S. administration, his appointment is a signal to facilitate the transatlantic dialogue.

It is to be noted that Sarkozy’s official spokesman, David Martinon, his diplomatic adviser for the last five years and a close aide, is widely regarded as very friendly to Israel and the United States; and the same can be said of his Middle East and North African adviser, Boris Boillon.

Seizing the Opportunity: America’s Challenge

Sarkozy’s election could encourage a profound shift in transatlantic relations, making Europe a responsible and credible partner to the United States once again. Angela Merkel’s lack of leverage, due to difficulties inherent in the German “grand coalition,” and Gordon Brown’s potentially difficult start (as inheritor to, rather than winner of, the prime ministership, and because of the unpopularity of Tony Blair’s foreign policy) may make Sarkozy’s leadership critical for the future of Europe. In the Mediterranean, for instance, where Sarkozy has decided to lead the effort for a union, loosely modelled on the EU, to promote economic and strategic exchanges, good governance, cooperation, and cultural dialogue, a positive French presence would be a key asset for America.

Such efforts will, however, require much convincing of the public on Sarkozy’s side, as some of his boldest foreign policy stances appear to make a substantial part of the French population uncomfortable. Chirac’s direct challenge to the U.S. before the Iraq war was quite popular, and Sarkozy had been caricatured during the campaign as an “American neoconservative with a French passport.” All in all, most French are attached to the traditional policy of “independence” toward Washington.

Sarkozy will thus have to prove to the French public that his Atlanticist approach is more efficient than direct confrontation and that cultivating closer ties with the U.S. reinforces France’s interests and values rather than the opposite. American leaders will have to be aware of this challenge and to show from the start their willingness to help Sarkozy defend and justify his positions. Washington’s role will be critical.

Thus, if Sarkozy can bring back from Washington ambitious frameworks on issues such as global warming and reduction of carbon emissions—a decisive issue for the French president and people—his leverage will be much stronger on issues like Iran or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where he can lead Europe to a more balanced and useful position. On various issues, Washington would do well to take into consideration France’s positions in order to reinforce Sarkozy vis-à-vis his electorate.

Sarkozy’s victory represents a great chance for both sides of the Atlantic. The French population has shown, by giving Sarkozy a very strong mandate (53 percent, with an historic 85 percent voter turnout), that it was ready for change, and has embraced his call for a “clean break” with France’s political traditions. But resistance will be strong, the temptation to paralysis considerable. The responsibility lies on the shoulders of both France and the United States to face the challenges ahead and work together to rebuild transatlantic relations for the twenty-first century.

June 2007

Ten stakes of Foreign Policy

The upcoming first round – in less than a week - of the French Presidential Election will be critical to the future of France domestically and to its standing in the world.

If the French presidential campaign is mainly about domestic issues and if France’ constituents pay scant attention to foreign and defence policy; it is important to give it a close look.

In the front page of the daily newspaper Le Monde the three main candidates to the presidential race answered to questions about ten stakes of foreign policy.

Both the questions and the answers revealed the preoccupations of the French people on the ongoing foreign policy debate and the tasks that await the next president.

Ten Stakes of Foreign Policy

The Iranian issue

The question of the journalist was interesting in itself as it puts forward the idea that the next president may find himself in a situation to oppose to military strikes if the US or Israel decide it is the only way to prevent Iran from getting the nuclear bomb.

The question was about the means to use and not on whether or not they should oppose.

François Bayrou, head of the centre-right party is the toughest vis-à-vis the US saying “It is not about ‘opposing’ the US, since I doubt they would, in that hypothesis, appeal for the international community’ backing, it is about deterring them from getting involved in a new dead end.”

He expresses here the idea of preventing the US to another “risky attempt”.

Ségolène Royal recalls principles refusing “any unilateral initiative” but stays silent about the way the international community makes “Iran listens to the voice of the reason”. In her explanation there is an outright refusal of any initiative and a lack of the means by which the international community makes Iran comply to the resolutions.

On the other hand, Nicolas Sarkozy offers a perspective and stresses the need to use diplomacy: “I’m convinced a diplomatic issue is possible if the international community stays firm on her principles and requests”. The firmness, the use of diplomacy and the union of the international community, speaking of one voice, added to the adoption of resolutions are the keys for the research of a solving according to him.

Le Monde: Are you in favour of an embargo by the great powers on the selling of refined oil products to Iran? Would you accept the idea of sanctions adopted out of the UN framework, on the basis of “a coalition of volunteer countries”?

F. Bayrou praises for an exam “I think to proceed to a precise exam of all the means of economic pressure we dispose, is needed”. He is still wondering about what should be done and seems to fear the reactions of Russia and China “we have to be smart enough so that we do not have an in head-on opposition to China and Russia”.

S. Royal is clear about the evolution “we will have to step up the sanctions” but she curbs the initiative of a coalition even though the UE implemented the resolution of the UNSC through a coalition of volunteer countries. She is firm about the attitude but doesn’t give indications on the means.

N. Sarkozy says clearly that “we will have to go further in the sanctions” adding that “everything is still on the table”, […] what matters is efficiency.” He is ready to go beyond resolution 1747and would be ready to go further on sanctions even without UNSC’s resolutions.

Le Monde: Would you agree with the idea to authorise Iran to continue to have on its territory, under the control of the AIEA, research and development activities in the filed of the uranium enrichment, as a potential compromise for a way out of the diplomatic dead end?

Questioned about the opportunity for Iran to continue nuclear research and developments activities under the control of AIEA, they all agree.None of them is in favour of the AIEA control on Iran’ research and development activities as a compromise to find a diplomatic way out.

For F. Bayrou it is nonetheless “illusory and unfair to forbid access to a civil nuclear to Iran”.

S. Royal sticks to her idea that “the question is today that Iran stops its process of enrichment

without control”. Adding: “I say again that the best solution seems to me Russia’s proposal to supply Iran with enriched uranium so that it will avert the risk of proliferation while allowing this country to access electricity of nuclear origin.”

For N. Sarkozy “Iran has to show its pacific intentions” before the international community’ proposals on the development of a civil nuclear programme be carefully studied.

The crisis in Darfur

Le Monde: Are you in favour of the adoption of new sanctions against the Sudanese regime, if it keeps refusing the display of a UN peacekeepers contingent in Darfur, as the UNCS 1706 resolution requests? Which sanctions exactly?

They all agree on the overdue sanctions and the very much needed European action. Nicolas Sarkozy goes further stating “France will implement, if needed the measures with its European partners or from a national perspective.”

Weapons selling to China

Le Monde: Are in favour of the lifting of the European embargo on weapon selling to China?

For now they are not in favour of the lifting of the European embargo on the sells of weapons to China. For the three of them it goes along with the state of Human Rights in the country.

To F. Bayrou “ whether it is about Darfur, Taiwan, Iran, the protection of the minorities preservation and the respect of human of the person, we are in right to expect a strong inflexion of the Chinese policy before considering to normalize the situation”.

S. Royal deems “the lifting of the embargo is premature.”

The American anti-missile shield

Le Monde: Are you in favour of the settlement in Poland and Tchec Republic of the anti-missile shield elements that Americans want to implement? Do you reckon that this project makes sense, vis-à-vis the risk that Iran might in the future get missiles able to hit the European territory?

F. Bayrou prompts a dialogue with the US to avoid decision taken “under the American pressure”. “While Europeans should dispose of tools of threats analysis, of strategic prospective and programming of their joint military means, […] let’s start by discussing with the US of our conception of a desirable international order and we will see then in which measure we can share their military options.”

S. Royal “will make sure that this tool, essential to our political and diplomatic independence keeps permanently its credibility” but in the meantime it has to be stressed that she said the contrary on many occasions. She proposed to share in cooperation the buying a new aircraft carrier with the UK and declared that, if elected she would earmark the Defence money to fund education and the needed reforms.

She expresses doubts on the efficiency of the American anti missile shield as well as on the political question whether the EU would be protected by an American shield that EU does not control.

She expresses a lot of defiance vis-à-vis both the NATO and the US.

N. Sarkozy believes that security questions of one European partner concern all EU members and should be discussed first at this level. He is in favour of a European Defence and for a dialogue between the European partners.

Europe confronted with Russia

Le Monde: Are you in favour of the entrance, one day, of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO?

In the EU?

It is clear for the three candidates that Ukraine and Georgia can not join the EU today but with a nuance from Sarkozy on NATO.

F. Bayrou is not favour of new joining to the EU as long as the principles are not redefined. He is also opposed to their entrance into NATO.

S. Royal is not in favour of the entrance of Ukraine and Georgia neither into NATO nor into the EU and wonders about their security contribution. She praises for a break in the enlargement process of the UE.

N. Sarkozy makes a difference between joining NATO and the UE; he is for the development of a new and improved partnership with these 2 countries on economic levels. But he is not in favour of their entrance in the EU;

On NATO, at the opposite of the 2 others candidates he in favour of a deeper dialogue as a path to a future integration according to the wish of the people.

Le Monde: Would you be ready to speed up the Nabucco project aimed at giving the opportunitybto Europe to reduce its dependence to Russian gas supplying, opening the way to hydrocarbons coming from Central Asia, avoiding the Russian territory?

They all agree on the idea of the speeding up of the Nabucco project giving Europe the opportunity to curb its dependence to Russia’ gas.

F. Bayrou sees it as “a welcome tool of economical diversification”.

For S. Royal “it is a question of energetic independence”. And for N. Sarkozy “it is about a stable and diversified supplying on the long run for Europe energetic needs”.

Le Monde: Are you in favour of Russian funds increase into EADS Company, in which they have 5% of the share today?

They all disagree about the increase of Russian funds in the EADS because the company is linked to the French and European defence’ imperatives.



The analysis of the newspaper recalls the nuances between the three candidates and their distance from President Chirac’ foreign policy especially on Iran and China;

Nevertheless it confirms that François Bayrou and Segolene Royal should be the heirs of Chirac’ foreign policy following his main lines.

Nicolas Sarkozy is finally the candidate who is the more opposed to Chirac’s vision;

As he stated during his foreign affairs convention: he is in favour of real changes on foreign affairs; He wants to stick to values and to a transatlantic dialogue.