As guest of the prestigious European Business School I consider it a great honour to talk to you this evening,. You have made a remarkable exception by asking a Frenchman to talk of defence and foreign policy. Maybe it is because of my Corsican roots, so I take it as a tribute to the memory of Napoleon!
However it is in my modest role of Chairman of the Robert Schuman Foundation that I would like to share some thoughts with you before we start our debate.


The European Union is a Miracle.

After the devastation of the Second World War it succeeded in banishing all notion of conflict from the European continent. In 60 years it has taken Europe to a level of prosperity that was unthinkable in 1945. Today it is the world’s leading producer of wealth since it represents 22.6% of the GDP and 42% of trade.
It has achieved this according to a unique model comprising the creation of such solidarity between its members that it is in their better interest to  work together rather than fighting each other.
This wager, launched in 1950 has been a success. The UK fought against it, then joined it -  well - nearly since it is determined to maintain its specific nature as much as it can before finally giving in, every time, to reason. So, before anyone else beats me to it, - when you cannot do otherwise I would like to be the first one to welcome you most warmly, here in London, into the Euro area!

I acknowledge that an adventure like this is unprecedented. It is unique.
Can the miracle last? This obviously depends on the wisdom of European leaders. Will they be visionaries and courageous enough or will they follow the natural trend of facility – the easy way out, the eternal political demon of temptation? I think that the construction of Europe is irreversible because it has provided the population with something it really desired: peace and prosperity. It has created so many points of joint interest between the Union countries that a specific European interest has now emerged.

This is what I would like to look at with you via the issue of defence and foreign policy.
Indeed, for 60 years the priority has been to abolish the borders between us, to promote the free movement of goods, people and capital. This has been achieved in the main even though there is still work to do to complete the great single market of 497 million inhabitants – the biggest in the world thanks to its buying power.
The world is now looking to Europe. Globalization is now a daily issue. Since it is not a State but a voluntary Union of sovereign States it does not have the qualities that would enable it to act or react in the same way as the major continent States who structure our multi-polar world. Its security is endangered by new threats; the economic and financial crisis shows the extent to which Europe should be looking into finding its place and role in the world. If it overcomes this new challenge, it will be entering a new decisive phase.
I would like therefore to focus my thoughts on three questions that are asked about European defence and foreign policy:

What is at stake?

What are the challenges?

What is possible?


The Stakes

In the years to come the Union will be playing for its place and role in the world.
For its part the latter needs to hear what Europe has to say.

The Union of Europe was accomplished by the economy. But from the very start the aim was to create political union.
So the Union’s Member States share some of their sovereign prerogatives in a federal mode because they believe they are more effective together than if they operated alone. This is the case with regard to the agricultural, trade, transport policies and for those who use the Euro, the currency policy. In a globalised world size matters – and the pertinent size is that of the continent. But the transfer of State competences over to a Europe has not involved areas of defence and foreign policy until now – since these are managed according to inter-state co-operation. This is a slow method: it is difficult for 27 to decide unanimously. The world is moving along at a much greater pace than that of consultation. This is why the Lisbon Treaty enters a new stage in which some can decide and decide more effectively on a European level in new areas. If the European Union can pool its work in terms of defence and foreign policy it will naturally become a powerful world player. It would cross a political threshold that will enable it to enjoy economic influence.
A peaceful Union, built on an ideal opposite to imperial spirit the world is looking to Europe for its values that are guaranteed by law. Guantanamo could never have existed in Europe! The 200 conventions concluded with the Council of Europe together with the Union’s positive law comprise our best achievement in the world in terms of the protection of both individual and collective rights. Its generous, attractive values are the opposite of unilateralism and promote multilateralism that should go hand in hand with the world’s multi-polarity. This is why it is the only one that can intervene in certain conflicts. The world needs Europe. It is where Soft Power has been best developed. Its enlargement and neighbourhood policies, the development aid it provides – more than 50% of world aid – ensure that it is one of the powers that counts. 


The Challenges

The European Union must respond to the threats made to its security.
The way it is organized in terms of defence has to be achieved more rapidly.

In a time of global security Europe, which is a wealthy continent, finds itself challenged on all sides.
I do not have to convince London of the reality of the terrorist threat. It is real. It must be fought by enhanced co-operation between States and joint European tools.

Large scale crime has succeeded perfectly in extending beyond the national framework. It is now continental and we might even say, transcontinental. It is prospering at a quicker pace than normal trade. Drugs traffickers have been seen in Somalia working with pirates. The mafia has had a role to play in recent IT attacks. International gangs are leading human, drugs and arms trafficking forging their way right into Europe. Large scale crime threatens our security and comprises a new danger against which we are increasingly forced to employ military means.
In addition to this the economic crisis makes it obvious that we need to link European defence and foreign policy to our economic interests; at the same time we must take on board the environmental imperatives together with global warming.
Responses to these threats involve the military and the civilian, the armed forces, the police and the law. In spite of the work that has already been undertaken a great deal still remains to be done because domestic order lies in the realm of state sovereignty and it is difficult to separate it from this. I would like to point out however the enormous amount of progress that has been made thanks to the Schengen Agreements signed by 25 European countries (including three non-Union Members), the Prüm Agreements that facilitate information exchange on terrorists and the European arrest warrant.

Finally more traditional threats remain which we would be wrong to ignore such as the nuclear issue in Iran, North Korea and eternally unstable Africa. Contrary to generally accepted ideas purely military requirements subsist. We should not lower our guard and nuclear dissuasion will always be justified as long as there is still at least one state in the world equipped with it. Nuclear proliferation is another cause for concern. The race to find natural resources makes it necessary to maintain a powerful military tool that dissuades and which we can deploy according to circumstances.


The organisation of European defence bears the mark of history

European military expenditure only represents half of what is spent in the US. Across the entire world defence budgets are increasing. They have now risen above the levels they had reached at the end of the Cold War and are officially estimated at over 1,400 billion dollars ie over 2.5% of the world GDP. . With the exception of the UK and France the Member States do not contribute enough in terms of the defence of Europe and they devote less than 2% of their wealth to defence. For a long time they have depended on others such as the USA and then NATO.  Some are even “European defence stowaways” and continue to diminish their budget.

Since 1949 NATO has played a decisive role in the defence of Europe. It won the Cold War and protected the continent from major conflict. It has contributed towards the inter-operability of European armies. Its enlargement to the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe has until now succeeded in stabilizing situations on Europe’s borders. But it has not led to the settlement of “the frozen conflicts”, as we witnessed in Georgia in the summer of 2008 and that are still evident in Transnistria and Nagorny Karabakh; it has not provided a political solution to old disputes such as in Cyprus or in the Aegean Sea.

Finally the institutions of the European Union have been taking care of defence since the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999  and above all since the initiative launched in Saint Malo in 1998 by the British Prime Minister and the French President. Drawing lessons from the Balkan Wars of the 1990’s they wanted to “create a European defence identity” so that it had the means to act within Europe.
So, European Defence does exist. It focuses on peacekeeping missions and international police forces, for example in the Balkans. It then moved onto to international operations of a humanitarian or political nature such as in Chad and Congo – and now under British command it is even involved in more operational security activities such as the maritime operation Atalante off the Somalian coasts. Twelve external operations have been initiated and undertaken by the Union.
It is equipped with staff and a strategy that was set down in 2003 and revised in December 2008. It has established capability goals that should make it possible to deploy 60,000 men in 60 days in the event of a major operation and to undertake simultaneously several emergency, evacuation, stabilization and even rapid response operations. Defence and foreign policy issues are the responsibility of the Council of the Union, ie the institution which represents the States within which decisions are taken unanimously.  Hence Europe finds itself limited in terms of what it can do. This is why the Lisbon Treaty includes the possibility of forging a tailor-made European Defence between States – with at least nine members -  who want to work together. The text significantly enhances the means available to the European institutions in terms of foreign policy.
European Defence is progressing at its own pace; this is forcibly slow and gradual, whilst events in the world are gathering speed. Will it rise to the challenge in time? Will necessity push the States to move faster towards more integrated European Defence and foreign policy? I would now like to look into this issue.


The possible and the desirable

The world order is changing. The emergence of new demographic and economic continent-sized powers such as China, India and Brazil have changed and will continue to modify significantly the scene of international relations. Europe represented 15% of the world’s population after the 2nd World War, today we represent 6% and in 2050 the figure will only be 3%. In a multi-polar world Europe can maintain its model and find a real role to play if it is more united comes. This is a matter of urgency.
European now has a pole of interest in its own right. As a result we can no longer be satisfied with our traditional Soft Power and we must think of ourselves as a real power in the world.

European Interests are specific.
We seek security and stability for our States and our populations. We cannot guarantee them alone because in this new world we are all mutually dependent. The main issue which is immediately clear are our alliances and relations with the USA.

Until now the latter has ensured the security of the European continent and its domination of the world enabled us to be docile and even silent allies. However the war in Iraq showed that seen from either Washington or Europe visions of the world could differ. This must make any responsible European leader think a little.
Our interests are not always the same as the USA who remain our privileged allies.
This is obvious on our borders. How can the continent be stabilized long term if the relationship with Russia has not been settled, whatever it costs us to deal with a non-democratic country and one which is increasingly unpredictable? I am not just thinking in terms of energy but also of our political and cultural interests. Where will Putin’s Russia end its erratic journey? In a democracy or another totalitarian state? It is in our interest to draw it towards democracy and not push it in the opposite direction. Europe is best placed to do this because it is its neighbour.
The same goes for some of our interests further afield, in the Mediterranean, Asia, Africa, Asia and in Latin America. Europe has its own interests which are not always shared by America. 

We have the right to defend our model and our interests with our methods. Our vision of international politics, possibly too idealistic, has been acquired thanks to our own history. It led us to refuse the idea of the Empire. Europe’s secular experience leads us to mistrust for example the use of force alone. But they have also led to a specific vision of modern warfare. General Petraeus teaches his officers French Colonel Galula’s theory of counter-insurrection and applies new ideas in Afghanistan: we shall bring peace back to Afghanistan with the support of the local population, this means by establishing ourselves amongst them and by reconciling warring clans long term. Winston Churchill said, “The Americans always choose the best solution …. after having tried all of the others!” This quote applies to the situation in Afghanistan and I think that we shall succeed there.

However European Soft Power will not be enough to guarantee and promote our interests in the world. Until now it has been extremely effective enabling the return of 181 million Europeans to a democratic regime since 1957 – it has spread its aura over its neighbourhood thanks to a generous stabilisation policy, political and trade agreements and promises of accession. Europe has exported its standards – legal, technological and political – to level equal to none via the simple use of persuasion, seduction and law. The European Union must not content itself with being a “global payer” but it must become a “global player”. The world is too dangerous to be satisfied with ideas, aid and rules. We must have strength – even if we never employ it. “Si vis pacem para bellum »…
The Americans seem to have taken a step back from Hard Power, the power of force in international relations; during her speech to the Senate Hilary Clinton developed the idea of Smart Power – intelligent power – a combination in the use of strength and conviction. We must do exactly the opposite and provide our soft power and military credibility!
Our most difficult partners such as Russia or China do not like this idea. They clearly prefer “soft Europe” which allows them to continue dealing with the States individually, to divide them in order to achieve the best conditions. When President Sarkozy travelled to Moscow to negotiate the halt of the advance of Russian troops on Tbilissi in August 2008 the press conference tables were ready and adorned with Russian and French flags. He had the latter changed for European flags since he was the president in office of the European Council. The Russians did not like this one bit! A more united Europe is evidently not good news for everyone because it is more powerful than it even would want to believe itself! This should be enough to convince any Euro-sceptic! 

The Lisbon Treaty gives the European Union institutions a higher profile, a stable President of the Council, a foreign minister and a joint diplomatic service, and a legal framework to develop a true European Defence system with voluntary members. This is an important step forwards. At the same time joint capabilities are gradually being put together: a common military transport fleet, a joint training scheme for our officers, the pooling of our satellites.
France’s new position with regard to NATO conveys the will to move forwards by promoting the contribution made by NATO and by turning the CFSP into an added advantage for the Alliance. NATO would not be accepted for missions in Africa or the Caucasus whilst EU missions make our presence possible. In the waters off Somalia NATO is supporting the Union for the very first time. NATO is still the vital mainstay of our security but it will not be enough.
In addition to this the only two European nuclear powers, the UK and France are contributing to the continent’s overall security whether we like it or not. From this point of view France has made its position clear, under the Presidencies of both Mr Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy: it is evident that our vital interests are linked to those of our European partners.
Both of our countries have a specific responsibility in taking European Defence forwards and the agreements signed during the French President’s State visit in 2008 embody this rapprochement.
This is a key element for future developments. With regard to the Iranian issue Europe is involved because of the influence our two countries have together with the commitment provided by Germany. In terms of global issues Europe has already contributed to the settlement of international crises or to the approach of major world issues such as global warming. From a French point of view there is a real desire to have influence. President Sarkozy showed this during his brilliant presidency of the Council of the European Union by embodying the European desire to think of itself as a power that has weight. It is therefore possible.

This desire has not always found unanimous agreement within the Union because its history in both the East and the West plays a decisive role. It has cured people of military adventures but it has also disarmed them. But this is not an insurmountable problem because nothing is impossible for the States which want to progress towards true European identity in the international arena. Experience proves that these states will take the others along with them.

The Union can progress at its own pace but this implies in-depth review.
Borders, even provisional ones, will have to be defined to strengthen Europe’s political unity and to gain the support of the people. In all likelihood this will imply putting a stop to the endless enlargement of Europe. We shall have to accept common military capabilities, which one day will obey one commander for a clear, irrevocable mandate. We shall have to promote our economic and commercial interests to have influence in the world, otherwise we will miss the boat.
To achieve this I am very much aware that we need a clear vision of the world, a pragmatic but voluntary view of Europe. As soon as we set ourselves on a world scale there is European unity, there are obvious borders to Europe, there are European values which are now called peace and dialogue. Europe has several hearts called London, Berlin and Paris, and no diplomat would contest this!

But look! Like every Frenchman I’m being swept away by my passion – a characteristic you know us well for! I know that the British like this and it makes them smile, in the same way as your realism also gives us, the French, pleasure. Finally we love our countries. As far as I am concerned this is why I am so European.