Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Chatham House. I’m Robin Niblett, Direct of the Institute, and we’re absolutely delighted to welcome Philippe Etienne, Diplomatic Advisor to President Macron of France to the Institute, for this discussion on A View from the Élysée: France’s Role in the World. The timing couldn’t be better. We’ve started our entrée. We are back to work, those of us who took, and I did, a summer holiday, are all getting back to action, and as many of you will know, the President of France has a tradition, I think. I don’t know how long it’s gone on for, Ambassador, but it would’ve been round August, I think towards the end of August, they gather all of the Ambassadors, Diplomatic Corps for a discussion on France’s priorities, led by the President of the Republic, obviously, President Macron, in this case. And so, we’ll have an opportunity to hear, as well, directly this evening, from Philippe Etienne, some of the main themes of that speech.
Now I will say, right at the beginning, before I introduce him fully, this meeting is on the record, and we’re delighted you’re all here. Obviously, as Diplomatic Advisor to the President, Philippe Etienne has a sensitive role, as everyone in that position in any Government, as well as his predecessors hold. So, we are going to stick to the theme of this evening, and there may be one or two questions that may drift this way, when we come to Q&A, you may want to go in the Brexit direction but, you know, we will not put Monsieur Etienne, I’m not going to put him under that pressure. That’s not the theme of this discussion. We have a Europe Minister, as you may know from France coming to join us on Thursday, and that will be a different discussion and we’ll have plenty of opportunity, those of you who come back to do that, on Thursday, as an advertisement, as I can do right now.
But this evening, we really are going to focus on France’s diplomatic priorities, its role in the world, as a fellow P5 Member in the UN Security Council with the United Kingdom, there is no shortage of issues to take on the sort of issues to follow here. Philippe Etienne, extremely well-qualified, obviously, for the role he took up. He had been serving as Ambassador to Germany, a position he’d held from 2014 and 2017 he was tapped, as I understand it, to become Ambassador to Moscow. But within a month of that nomination, President Macron had asked him to come and play the role, as his Diplomatic Advisor. So, he leads and co-ordinates on all aspects of France’s security policy and brings together the Government, in essence, the equivalent of the National Security Advisor role in the United States. He’s been Ambassador to a number of countries throughout Europe. He’s held roles, also on behalf of France, in Brussels. He has obviously, held a number of positions, as well, in the French Foreign Office, including as Deputy Chief of Staff and Chief of Staff to two former Foreign Ministers. So, could not be in a better position to be able to share these thoughts with us. Philippe, thank you very much for joining us. We look forward to your thoughts, look forward to conversation, and welcome to Chatham House [applause].
Philippe Etienne
Thank you. Thank you very much, Robin. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, as a Diplomatic Advisor to President Macron, I must confess that my presentation will not be entirely objective, but I will try. I will try my best. The election of President Macron, of a year ago, was a signal about France’s role in the world, with three dimensions. The transformation of France itself, through ambitious reforms, a vision for Europe, and the promotion of international co-operation. In his first year in office, foreign and European policies played an important role in President Macron’s agenda. He travelled to all continents, building essential relationships with many world and European leaders. He gave fundamental speeches on his ambitions and his visions and the visions of France, from Europe to Africa, to the promotion of a strengthened rules-based international order.
He took decisions to further embed France in our interconnected world by making France a more attractive place to invest, innovate and study with and through necessary reforms on labour market, tax policy, education, for instance, by reconnecting with French communities around the world, to make them part of our national effort.
In a year, it is fair to say that he was successful in making France’s voice heard loud and clear on major issues facing the international order. What I would like to do here today is to provide you with an understanding of France’s foreign policy vision and priorities, with a focus on two pillars. First, security and defence of France and Europe, at a time when threats are rising and second, the difference of what we can call common goods and the rules-based multilateral order.
First, security will remain the number one priority, and I will start with the fight against terrorist groups. France and Europe continue to face a severe terrorist threat as multiple attacks, for instance, in Paris and London, Nice and Manchester, have tragically demonstrated. The security of French Citizens remains the utmost priority of France’s foreign policy. We adopted a new Counterterrorism Bill in the French Parliament and hosted an International Conference against terrorists financing [inaudible – 06:03] at the OECD in Paris.
We also brought forward, through a close, an efficient co-operation between France and the UK, the fight against terrorist content online but, tackling terrorism entails fighting terrorist groups, where they strive. French troops continue to be deployed in two major counterterrorism operations. In the Sahel, 4,000 French troops serve in Operation Barkhane, the largest of all French deployments around the world. We are very grateful for the operational support, provided by the United Kingdom, since the Prime Minister made the decision to deploy three Chinook helicopters at the Sandhurst Summit. Since July, British troops are deployed with us.
We also support African ownership of peacekeeping through the build-up of the Multinational G5 Sahel Force. In addition, France and the UK support the countries of the Lake Chad region, in the fight against Boko Haram. In Iraq and Syria, as part of the international coalition against Daesh, significant progress has been achieved, in the past two years. It is essential that operations continue, alongside the Syrian democratic forces until all pockets under Daesh control are liberated. There again, France and Britain fight alongside, to ensure that Daesh is defeated and unable to strike our homelands. Yet, terrorism is fuelled by instability. It will not be defeated by military means alone. As our President stated in his address to the French Ambassadors already last year, “Diplomatic, defence, development, the three Ds, have to go hand-in-hand.” Finding and promoting political solutions are essential to solving the root causes of terrorism and allowing societies to develop and prosper. France, alongside its partners at the UN Security Council, will continue to take diplomatic initiatives to support political solutions.
In Libya, President Macron organised a major international meeting, hosting all four main Libyan Leaders in Paris last May. It is essential that this political process leads to elections, as soon as possible, under the auspices of the United Nations. This effort is also linked to the challenge of tackling human trafficking across Africa and the Mediterranean. On Syria, there can be no long-term stability, no possibility for refugees to safely to return to their homeland, and no durable answer to the scourge of terrorism, without an inclusive political process, based on relevant Security Council Resolutions. France is proposing to reconcile the diverging positions of our Western and are partners of a small group, on the one hand, with those of Russia, Iran and Turkey, the Guarantors of the Astana Process, on the other hand. Anybody having leverage on the regime should use it, to get it to negotiate a political transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. For the time being, we are deeply concerned about the situation in Idlib.
Second, the defence of nuclear and chemical non-proliferation. France views the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as a major threat to international security. For this reason, we have stood side-by-side with Britain, in responding to the unacceptable use of chemical weapons in Salisbury last March and in Dummar, in Syria. Our co-ordinated diplomatic response, following the attack on British soil and the joint military operation against the chemical facilities of the Syrian regime in April, were both part of a coherent strategy to re-establish an effective deterrents against the use of chemical weapons. In the coming weeks, we will continue to work together, to strengthen the International Chemical Weapons Prohibition regime at the OPCW in The Hague, with an attribution mechanism, and to create a chemical weapon specific sanction regime at the EU.
France, as a nuclear weapons state, has always considered the preservation of the nuclear non-proliferation regime a central piece of international stability. Since 2003, Paris, London and Berlin had taken the lead in promoting a diplomatic path to solve the Iran nuclear crisis. With this history and our security in mind, we supported and continue to support the 2015 Vienna Agreement on the Iranian nuclear Program. Despite the US decision to leave the JCPOA, France made it very clear that it would continue, together with Germany and Britain, to stay in the deal, as long as the Iranians continue to abide by their obligations. While we relentlessly work to preserve this JCPOA, President Macron has, since 2017, made it clear that those concerns, related to the Iran ballistic program, its regional behaviour and the long-term status of its nuclear program, would have to be addressed.
Third, reinforcing Europe’s role on security and defence. The strategic environment has drastically evolved since the end of the Cold War. Whether we consider terrorism, proliferation or the resurgence of aggressive state behaviours, threats to Europe have increased. Our security can no longer be taken for granted. The NATO Summit reaffirmed the unity of the Alliance and the strengths of the transatlantic relationship, but it has now become clear, to all, that Europe should take more responsibility for its own security. It is a fact we must grapple with.
This entails two immediate consequences. If Europe is to shoulder its responsibilities to guarantee the security of its citizens. European countries will, on the one hand, need to continue increasing their resources, as they have pledged to, since the world’s NATO Summit in 2014. Europeans will also need to dedicate their energy to developing our strategic autonomy. France has made its commitments clear by committing itself to achieving the 2% NATO defence spending objective.
On the other hand, a lot has already been achieved at the European level. Europe has never made more progress on defence and security than in this last year. The creation of the European Defence Fund, the launch of the permanent structured co-operation, and the signing of the European Intervention Initiative, which the UK was among the first ones to support and sign, stand out as significant advances for European defence.
President Macron’s last speech, which you mentioned, Robin, be – with, to our Ambassadors, made clear we want to meet tomorrow’s threats. A key element of this objective is the reinforcement of European solidarity in security and defence. Our understanding of our commitments under Article 42.7 of the EU Treaty will have to be deepened. France first invoked this provision of the Lisbon Treaty, following the Paris attacks in 2015. To add to our traditional alliances, reinforced solidarity between member states is one avenue to respond to this changing environment.
In addition, it is essential to update and revisit European security architecture that was developed during the Cold War and no longer addresses to those realities. We see two threads of work. First, a renewed dialogue between Europeans, on essential elements of stability for the European Continent, cybersecurity, chemical weapons, arms control regimes, territorial conflicts, as well as space, security and the protection of the Arctic, are examples of this agenda. Second, by reinforcing the centrality of the Council of Europe to underpin our shared, liberal, democratic values. Our European security is linked to the promotion of liberal values and human rights, which are at the heart of our common identity. Compromising on our core European values is not an option.
The second focus will be on – and the last one – will be on promoting global public goods, which can only be achieved through increased co-operation. In addition to security, meeting global challenges and managing global public goods, represent under the pillar of our foreign policy. Preserving the environment, preventing pandemics, promoting education, but also, modernising our common framework for international trade, are common objectives we should all share.
The first public good that is under threat are the very institutions that underpin the international order we live in. The very notion of multilateral co-operation that has underpinned the world order, that was established after World War II is being challenged. While the system’s shortcomings are evident, the world needs to fix and improve ins – those institutions and not revert to an international order, based on anarchy and world power.
France’s core belief is that none of the collective challenges we face: global warming cybersecurity, global health, can be met without an effective and strengthened multilateral order. We would, therefore, continue to voice our strong position, whenever necessary, but we will also continue to pursue all avenues, especially to convince our American partners to change course, when necessary, when we find it necessary and to find constructive solutions, where possible. Our dialogue with Washington will consequently remain a cornerstone of our policy at the highest level of Government, and we must also generate positive momentum for global co-operation and address the new challenges that the current system has not dealt with.
With this in mind, we have decided, for instance, to support an international forum, designed to bring together individuals, seeing society as an institution, committed to promote governance solutions on issues as diverse as security, sustainable development, environment and the digital economy. The first edition of this, so-called, Paris Peace Forum will kick-off on the 11th of November, as we commemorate the end of World War I.
The greatest long-term challenge to our planet might be global warming, as we have observed with this new extreme weather, experienced this summer, again. We will continue to defend the Paris Climate Agreement Accord, despite the US decision to withdraw. In addition, following the One Planet Summit that was held in Paris last December, a follow-up international summit will be held in New York, on September the 26th. We will continue to promote an inclusive strategy, associating all stakeholders from Governments, Corporations to Local Authorities and non-Governmental organisations. More broadly, we will continue to push for the adoption of a new global pact for the environment to set global, legal standards, which are lacking.
Yet, our environmental diplomacy will only succeed if we can build new alliances and new avenues for co-operation. With this in mind, President Macron has made the environment a key element of our bilateral relationship, for instance, with China and with India, where he made a very important visit this year. There is, if I may come to my conclusion, obviously, a very strong link between what we try to achieve in Europe and our objectives on the international stage. Our Presidents, our countries core belief is that our world interests will be best defended and our values better promoted by a more united and sovereign Europe. I alluded to this when speaking about our ambition on defence, but this notion of a stronger Europe holds on all major issues. Whether we look at the environment, the regulation of cyberspace or international development, France believes a stronger Europe will make all our nations, collectively, stronger and more influential on the world stage, but also, and to conclude this time, in the words – and coming to the Franco-British relations, in the words of our President, at the Sandhurst Summit, at the beginning of this year, I quote, “There are two things nothing can change: no vote, no political decision, namely our history and our geography. Our two countries face the same strategic threats and share a common destiny.”
I think my introduction today has given many examples of this deep co-operation between the United Kingdom and France in foreign security and defence policies. I thank you for your attention [applause].
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Thank you very much, Monsieur Etienne, for those remarks and taking us on a – on your tour, if you see what I’m saying, of France’s key priorities in its international relations and its foreign policy, and you sort of packaged those in security and defence and then, as you said, in this whole question of how you promote global public goods and the kind of rules around which those can be best tackled. But the one country, and I will just throw a first question in and then let me – we have a great turnout this evening, and I’ll draw people in, and please ask you to get some thoughts and questions ready. But the one country that you spent a little less time on, obviously, was the Tours, so I’m not – this is – but let me come in on the one where China, in particular, is interesting and maybe just as opening question, people may want to go in more detail, it strikes me that the Trump administration is presenting European Governments with a challenge.
China is, in the Trump administration’s view, a threat. It is more threat than opportunity and there may not be many opportunities, if you take it from the view that is currently presented. You mentioned there how you’re putting, sort of, bilateral co-operation, including with the Chinese, on a climate at the core of the relationship, but the EU is doing it’s screaming mechanisms, it’s being a little more cautious. Some of the steps that China’s taken recently, to build up its military capacity, France is a global power, I know it looks to East Asia, as well, as an area where it needs to project its responsibilities, as a UN Permanent Security Council Member.
Could you just say just a broad word or two more about China or your thinking about China or your President’s and your Government’s thinking about China, and this balance between risk and opportunity that our main ally, traditionally the United States, I think is asking European Governments to decide upon?
Philippe Etienne
Well, on trade, for instance, we have clearly proposed also, to the United States, to discuss, in a multilateral way, with China, with Japan, about the modernisation of the WTO. So, we do not disagree with our American friends and partners about some challenges, which arise from the surge of Chinese power in the world. But we have proposed to handle to these problems in a somewhat different way. Again, it doesn’t mean that we disagree on the questions to – we should handle. And, indeed, climate here is a good example because China – also, because they face, also themselves, a big challenge, has taken its responsibilities, in the Paris Accord Agreement and since then. So, of course, everything is a balance and this balance, as far as France is concerned, in our policy toward China, can be found in the speech that our President held in the Chinese city of Xi’an, when he started his visit, at the beginning of this year in China. Which is, I think, a clear description of both the importance and the challenges we have to face together, also in this relationship. We are also, as you mentioned, very actively participating in the European debates on how we should – what position we should take on some issues, considering the Chinese policies. The Belt and Road Initiative, is one example.
So, altogether, and I can also recall that when our President visited both Australia and India, he also engaged with and when he received the – and he met many times, the Japanese Prime Minister, he also engaged with other big countries of this region, in this – in a strategic dialogue and partnership, but you have to consider all of it, and I don’t think there is such a…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Divide.
Philippe Etienne
…a divide. Thank you for helping me and excuse me for my poor English.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
No, that was a comprehensive answer. I don’t think that was simple at all. Yeah, but a key point there, using multilateral structures, rather than making it this, sort of, a bilateral diplomatic standoff. Right, let me open up and get some questions, and please introduce yourself, if you can. You can just say Chatham House Member, ‘cause you all are, but if anyone wants to add to that, that’s always helpful, as well, and I’ve got three hands have gone up. First, was the gentleman here, then I’ll come to the front, then there, then there. Yeah.
Member
Hello, House of Commons Library. You talked of international norms. It’s been reported that President Macron wishes to pursue a vision of concentric circles in the EU, in EU membership. I wondered if EU Members, like Poland and Hungary, fail to uphold the Rule of Law, will they find themselves outside the inner core and has the EU been too slow to use Article 7?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
A very specific question. I’ll let you take that one initially. Concentric circles, where do some of our partners fit in this, yeah?
Philippe Etienne
Well, I think you will find, in this vision, in the speech, which our President delivered on the 26th of September last year, in the University La Sorbonne and he has developed his vision also, in other, more recent positions. As a matter of fact, both the – both ideas of sovereignty of Europe in the world of today, with rising threats and challenges, and unity and democracy, they are the three concepts he has developed in his speech: sovereignty, unity, and democracy. Is there a contradiction, so the values, I mentioned it in my speech, it is the case for Europe, maybe still more for the European Union, it is still more important than for our international policies, yes, the values are something important and we support the Commission in those issues and those procedures. But, is there a contradiction between tackling the most important challenges and getting the policies and the instruments, which allow ourselves to defend our common interests and values and the objective of unity? This is a real question, but it is not a new question.
When the European Union developed, it has always – not always, but sometimes, for the most important decisions, it has often started with a small number of countries. Of course, Schengen and the Euro are the best examples for that, but there are others and there is even in outreaches, the so-called, reinforced co-operation provisions.
But unity means that all countries, when they are ready, must be able to join. So, we remain on this path, but we consider that now if we want to further, I just recalled in his speech he mentioned six keys of the sovereignty for Europe. In each of those, we have to take responsibilities and those countries, which are willing and able to go a bit faster, must be able to do so, while others should not be prevented to join them. Again, it is not something new and it has also to be considered, if necessary, if we are ready to go all at the beginning, why not? Of course it’s the best solution. So, we took some initiatives. I mentioned this intervention, European Initiative, which is a – now, which has been signed. It’s one example, but the aim of which is to get – to bring closer our strategic cultures in our defence policies. It is one example where we start with a smaller number and there might be other very important examples or fields where we should go, also, along these lines but, again, respecting also, the unity. So, it’s – it can seem contradictory, but it is not. It is not and it is not – it is maybe the only way to face, really, the challenges we are facing, we are considering now.
Then, of course, you are – other countries are big partners with whom you – you will have to consider, also, what sort of relations you will establish, and there, of course, there are two big partners: the East and South East of the European Union. We have to find the right relation with them. So, this vision is something, which I think my President expressed in a much clearer way than me tonight and in his speeches.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
He’s trying to straddle those three, sometimes, seemingly, contradictory elements, and we may come back to this, I think, on the question of immigration, if no-one brings it up, but I don’t want to steal other people’s questions. I’m going to hold that, if no-one comes it up, I’ll bring it up later. And Mia, you’re first, yeah.
Mia Emani
My name is Mia Emani. I am a representative of Mosul University in the UK and my question is about the war on Yemen that started in March 2015, recently described by the United Nations as the worst war since World War II and the role or support of France to Saudi Arabia? France is – we know it’s one of the three main suppliers of arms to Saudi Arabia, alongside US and the UK. What is the general view, objective, or long-term aim in this war? Thank you.
Philippe Etienne
Well, the – here, also, I could have mentioned Yemen, alongside with Syria, with Libya. We think that only a political solution can bring stability and peace and we support, very much, the efforts by the United Nations and their new Envoy, who is British, Martin Griffiths, to bring the parties together and he’s, right now, doing big efforts and we support him very much. As we are also very much concerned by the humanitarian aspects of this crisis and we discussed this, also with our partners in the region and we have organised some events, for instance, in Paris, in June, on the humanitarian dimension of this crisis to bring the support, the relief to the people in Yemen. And, lastly, on the question you mentioned on arms export, there is, indeed, a discussion in France, but we have clearly defined our regime of exports to adapt our authorisation system, to the situation for that and it is something which does exist in our arms export regime, yes. We obviously, take into account the possibility of having users of those materials we export to – in a way which we could not accept. This is being taken into account in all of our decisions and we have provided for this very clearly, because there is a process, which is clearly defined too, so that we can be sure of this result. That we have taken this into account.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Does that – that limits the use, and I think there’s an EU Code of Conduct on this as well, limits the export of offensive weaponry, is that right?
Philippe Etienne
Yes, we work in the framework of multilateral decisions, of course, the EU and others, but we also, nationally, have adapted our system. We do that everywhere there is a crisis, but we are fully aware of this, but on the top of that, there is also a very lively public discussion in France, on this question we are often asked on this, and which is normal.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
As there is in the UK. There was a question there, I know I’ve got the fourth here, but who was the person who had their hand up there? Yeah, sorry, there was somebody there. Ladies first. Exactly, you put madam first, please.
Jess Danya
Hi, I’m Jess Danya. I’m here in a personal capacity. You touched on EU sanctions for Russia and I was just wondering, how you envisage them looking? Would it be based on a similar model to the US? How you would work with EU partners to implement them, and just talk a bit more widely about that?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
So, yeah, sanctions on Russia and where are they going, I suppose, and what is the structure, yes, and what model we’re going to sustain over time? ‘Cause at the moment we seem to be at a cul-de-sac, you could say, where we’re stuck in one place, we’ll have them all forever?
Philippe Etienne
Well, first, on Russia, we have a clear approach of being very firm, when we have to be firm and to, at the same time, of course, having this dialogue at the level of our Presidents is the reason why our President accepted President Putin’s invitation to the Pittsburgh Forum, and they have a very important dialogue, but we are very firm, as we have shown after Salisbury. France was indeed, and I think that our British colleagues can confirm that, very, very active in rallying the solidarity of the EU, and as I mentioned, in my introductory words, we are with the UK. We are the two, probably most active countries for getting new legal instruments against chemical – the use of chemical weapons, which is also the case of the Salisbury attack.
Now, on the sanctions, we have a European – EU regime, as you know, and we have different EU regimes. So, we are like the United States, we have our sanctions’ regimes, but they are not exactly the same, of course, and it belongs to the EU to take its decisions. And one of this regime was decided after the crisis in Eastern Ukraine, and there you can find economic sanctions.
With Germany, and I did not mention how close our co-operation on all the subjects I mentioned is with Germany, but one good example is the crisis in Eastern Ukraine in Donbass. The Chancellor and President Macron’s predecessor, President Hollande have created with the Presidents of Russia and the President of Ukraine, a mechanism called Normandy format, after the signature of the Minsk Agreements and we tell the Russians, of course, that our objective is to solve politically, the crisis in Donbass and we do our best efforts with Germany, in the framework of this Normandy format and then, of course, we would like to go – to have something after the sanctions. But we are both, and I come back to my initial point, we are firm on our positions, but we try to resolve the issues and the Eastern Ukraine crisis is a good example.
Now, it doesn’t depend on France and Germany, of course, it depends on the countries, which are concerned – directly involved in this crisis. So, we – but we will continue to do that. We’ll continue to do that. We are, with Germany, very much committed on this. It is, I think, one of the most important topics for the issue of EU sanctions against Russia and then there are, of course, other regimes of sanctions, which are not against one country, but which are horizontal, which cover topics, which can be relevant for Russia or for other countries. And I mention one initiative we took, also after Salisbury and Dummar, but it is not related – its purpose is not and its scope is not related to one country, which would be to have a specific regime, EU sanctions regime against the use of chemical weapons. So, this is a broader description of what we have, what we could have, based on individual countries or more horizontal and we – I think it’s important that the EU has its own policy there, which does not prevent us to co-ordinate our positions with the Americans, of course. But we have our own decisions and we took our own decisions and some of the sanctions cover the same companies, the same people, some not, are different.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Do you see the – on the sanctions, quickly, do you see the sanctions on Russia for its actions in Crimea, which I understand were separate to those…
Philippe Etienne
Hmmm, absolutely, hmmm.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
…imposed on Donbass, as almost more stable because there was a clear violation of international law, yes, and whereas, the Eastern Ukraine, of course the Russian Government denies what’s happened? Do you see any differentiation between those two emerging within the EU?
Philippe Etienne
Frankly, Robin, the answer doesn’t belong to me, but to somebody else, because to the one whose behaviour led to sanctions, but you are perfectly right, they are – considering Ukraine and the developments in Ukraine in the last year, there are two EU sanctions regime. The first one, which was adapted along the years, was after to the action of Crimea, and the second one was after the crisis of Ukraine. So, both of them are linked to specific topics that will be dealt with consequently there.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I’m raising this ‘cause it’s ironic that the one you hear sometimes in debates in European capitals and elsewhere that look, Crimea, at some point, we’re going to have to resolve that, but actually, that may be the harder one to resolve ‘cause the breaking international law is almost admitted, you could say. In any case, let me not get into the minutiae of that. We’ve got a lot more questions. Please, yeah.
Bénédicte Paviot
Bonsoir, Bénédicte Paviot, UK Correspondent for France 24 and President of the Foreign Press Association. We talked about China, we talked about Russia. We haven’t talked very much about the United States of America and President Trump. By all accounts, not just in France, but in the UK and around the world, President Macron’s visit to Washington and to President Trump, first foreign leader to be asked to do a state visit was very well-covered and apparently, very successful, above and beyond the bromance headlines and the possible planting, or not, of a tree. But – I’m so sorry, I keep on dropping my notebook.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
You don’t need your notebook, though.
Bénédicte Paviot
I wasn’t looking at it actually. No, but the point is then Iran, then climate change and apart from the collaboration with the United Kingdom, with America on Syria, can you give us a few examples of where that visit subsequently, praised initially, then criticised, concrete examples of where that engagement with this American President Trump, has helped and been positive for France, for the EU, and the rest of the world?
Philippe Etienne
Well, first, if you – if I may, I will slightly correct your description because you said then Iran’s, then climate change, it is not correct, and climate change is a good example. On the 1st of June last year, President Trump said he would take the United States out of the Paris Agreement or Accord, what do you say?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Agreement.
Philippe Etienne
Agreement on climate. Immediately, who was the first leader who reacted on the 1st of June, the same day? Our President and he – the mobilisation and the One Planet Summit on the 12th of December last year on fi – new financing and so on, he worked very efficiently with other leaders too, and we can say today, although we know that the challenge of climate change is before us, I mention that, the – this agreement stands and is not only something, which is considered as a high-priority by all of us, but even in the United States, you will find many people working with us. So, the fact that we have disagreements has been really accepted, I think, by both leaders. But you asked me about this state visit to the United States.
First, I think it was, indeed, a very successful visit, with both the bilateral visit, the meetings between the delegations of Presidents and also, the other elements, and the speeches, there was a very important speech in the Congress, delivered by our President. And then, of course, we stand, and I’ve said we will do that again, we stand in a close relation with the United States because we have so many things to address together. For instance, the fight against terrorism. How can you imagine that we can face this global threat without acting together, Europe, the United States? Not only because there is a NATO, but also, because we need each other and of course, the Americans are very active, like, as we are, in fighting terrorism, especially in the regions where I mentioned.
Take Syria, for instance. We had a very – and we have still a very, very active discussion on what to do in Syria. How could we – we have created together, with the United States, the small group with Arab countries and European countries and the United States. We have acted together. We have created together a group of countries – I did not mention that, but I should have, against the impunity, against those using chemical weapons. It was also a joint initiative. So, considering first, that we clearly expressed our position on all subjects where we disagree, considering, second, that we have reacted concretely, for instance, on the climate issue. Considering, thirdly, that on Iran, we proposed something else. I mentioned it, and a broader negotiation with the four players and considering, fourthly, what we do together. I just mentioned, in direct answer to your question, a couple of examples. I cannot really understand the sort of implicit criticism that you can feel in such questions.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Exactly.
Bénédicte Paviot
In the United Kingdom there’s a different way of an impasse.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
It was a question. Right, let me bring…
Philippe Etienne
But thank you for the question because the question is often asked and I think it is important to have this possibility of – so…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Let me bring a couple more in. We have got a good eight or so questions. Right, we’ll group them in a minute, but let me take a couple more individually, if I can. Simon, where are you? Yeah, please there.
Simon Fraser
Simon Fraser, I’m the Deputy Chairman of Chatham House. And we’re not allowed to ask questions about Brexit, but are we allowed to ask questions about what happens after Brexit?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
We’ll find out. We’ll find out, and about to get the answer, yeah.
Simon Fraser
Because that’s a foreign policy question and because, I mean, I think there are a number in people in this country who are…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yeah, crafty.
Philippe Etienne
It’s very clever.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
He is a Diplomat.
Simon Fraser
We’re spending a lot of time thinking about how this country is going to exert influence in the world, effectively, in the future, and very many of us think that co-operation in foreign policy and defence and security policy with France is incredibly important, both bilaterally and through the European Union. I assume that that view is shared in France. So, could you comment a bit on how you think the mechanisms for our future bilateral co-operation can best be developed? Some people talk about bilateral relations or informal relations, between Britain and France, in foreign policy, around the world?
Philippe Etienne
Do you accept that I come back to the previous question because I forgot something? It was an answer to the tree question. The visit, the state visit, the visit by President Trump last July, July last year. There is a context that is history. The history, in particular of the United States, stepping into the First World War in 1917, which changed the fate of this world. I don’t need to recall what happened also during the Second World War. We think it is important to recall this, and do you know where this tree comes from? This tree, which was planted in the White House by the two Presidents, comes from a wood, a small forest in the East of France, which had seen the first real, heavy engagement by American soldiers when they came to the front, and there is in this middle of this wood, a fountain and on this fountain, there is a, how do you say, a Bulldog in English, the dog.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Oh, Bulldog.
Philippe Etienne
A Bulldog’s face, normal. It’s a name we took – we’ve taken from you.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I know and you probably didn’t want to say that there were English words in the French language.
Philippe Etienne
And the Bulldog is the emblem of the Marines Corps and it originated in this. So, I think we need this, also. We need to recall the importance of history in our relations because there is a link between history, between the past, the present and the future. So, excuse me because you mentioned the tree as some anecdote and I think it’s – it did very, very – it is meaningful. I tried to address your question in my introductory remarks about, at least the UK and France. I think that being Permanent Members of the Security Council and working really very closely together on all those global challenges. What strikes me, in my present job, is that we remain very much close, one from the other, on all those issues.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Close?
Philippe Etienne
Close: Iran, Syria, just two examples. So, I think we – maybe I didn’t understood the full scope of your question, but I think that the way we discuss, and we have a very strong bilateral, legal framework. We have summits, as the last time in Sandhurst, where we took those decisions. I recalled some of them in Sahel. I could have said that France also decided to send troops to Estonia, under a British Command in the framework of the Enhanced Forward Presence. So, I think we are – we will stay very, very, very close, one from the other, and we will continue to co-operate very closely, very – I don’t think it…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
But you’re saying therefore, there’s a suite of other Frameworks, UN, Security Council, NATO, there is the bilateral treaty though, as well, in Locarno. I mean, is there – and Lancaster House is what I meant. Is there a…
Philippe Etienne
Lancaster House.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Is there any thought or could therefore be given to any expansion do you think of existing structures, the bilateral ones?
Philippe Etienne
Well, I don’t know, but we had them. We had them. They are already – the co-operations are already very strong and we have also – also, if we implement what we’ve decided, it’s already something very impressive.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Okay, look, we have quite a few questions. I want to get them in. I’m going to do one more individual and then I’m going to group the last two groups of two. So, Philippe, please.
John Preston
Monsieur Etienne, welcome. My name is John Preston and I’ve been a Member of Chatham House since 1998, mainly with the Europe Programme. My question is a little bit parochial, but when you buy cheese you have a sample of the block and the sample la Manche. A man swam from Land’s End to Dover in the Channel and he reported an absence of fish and presence of rubbish, and the Royal Navy recorded much Russian shipping activity on the surface and underneath. Can you take my sample to the role of France?
Philippe Etienne
Well, was it about fish or about Russian ships?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I’m not quite sure. I think it was about co-operation in the Channel. I’m trying to work – usually, it’s something that divides us, but it could be an area for co-operation. I don’t know if you want to bring the Russian Military side in, or the recent French-British fishing spats. I’m not sure. I think I’m going to give you free licence on that one.
Philippe Etienne
No, because we have some issues right now between our fishermen and the fisheries are always a very sensitive policy, in all our maritime countries.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
No, on Russian activity there?
Philippe Etienne
But, indeed, conservation is – will remain a very important issue. But, of course, we – I already answered a question about Russia and I already mentioned the role we have played in addressing some issues, which were of primary concern for the United Kingdom. I mentioned Salisbury, and we remain in neutral and both of us have very, very important allies in NATO, and we have, then, what we will continue to do, between France and the UK, between the UK and the EU, so I think we will continue to address together these challenges.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Good, yeah, and your question there?
Philippe Etienne
Excuse me, if your question was a bit too sophisticated for me.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Well we’ll follow-up on it later. Yeah. Okay.
Philip Stephens
Philip Stephens from the Financial Times. About 50 or well, actually, probably 60 years ago, President Kennedy pressed the idea of a European nuclear deterrent, and for different reasons, France and Britain both rejected it. I think Macmillan said something disobliging about the British Navy sharing ships with foreign crews and President De Gaulle said something disobliging about the Americans and wanting to have its own – France wanting to have its own fully independent deterrent. Do you think the idea of a European nuclear deterrent is as distant today as it was then?
Philippe Etienne
Well, thank you for the very simple question.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
And the worst.
Philippe Etienne
They are the worst. What I can remind you is that in the framework of NATO, the importance of nuclear deterrents has been reaffirmed and again, reaffirmed. So, this is a very important element for France and – or probably for the UK, I am not – I cannot speak for the UK, but we are nuclear powers and of course, it’s very important that we recall this and we have to look at this. It is also the reason why the non-proliferation is so important. So, I don’t try to escape your question, but still…
Philip Stephens
You are trying to escape it.
Philippe Etienne
…I am – I was about to say that still, I am trying. I am maybe succeeding in escaping your questions.
Philip Stephens
And I should have said I was from the Guardian now.
Philippe Etienne
No, I come back to your question because I was also Ambassador to Germany, as you said, and there was, at some points – but very, very, very – just for short times, there are, from now – there are sometimes a resumption of this discussion. For the time being, again, we are concentrating our efforts in the European defence on the files I mentioned, and they already quite substantial. This new European Defence Fund, it’s something quite new in the EU. It’s the first time that the EU will finance or could finance development in defence capacities, and we have developed this new article in Europe, the EU Treaty, which means that yes, we try to deepen our understanding of what this solidarity means, among ourselves, without endangering, of course, the Atlantic Alliance.
So, I would prefer to stay in this framework, although I know that this question is [German – 55:13], excuse me if I speak German, raised in the public debate. I’m sure we will understand.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I’m sure we will come back on that. Right, we’re going – I will go, if I may, five minutes over, just because we’ve got a lot of people here, a lot of good questions. I’m sorry I can’t add anyone else to the list. I’ve got too many to run through. I’m going to group three here ‘cause I’ve not been going in this direction and the three that I took from the beginning and then – I know I have a couple of people waiting patiently there. Sorry, sir, you didn’t have your hand up earlier, the others did. So, this gentleman here first, there and there, yeah.
Member
Yes, [inaudible – 55:50]. Just wanted to say that next year, of course, there are the European elections and most likely, the countries are more voting for – not the countries, but the citizens are more voting not for Europe, but for their own challenges within their own country. So, it’s going to be a tricky when, in parallel, the migration challenges are pushing for a lot of nationalism and nationalist reaction. So, my question is two sides: how France could influence more positively things within Europe, in that respect, for more European reactions and second, according to the migration, the neighbouring and the external policy of the EU, what France could do to be more positive, in that respect?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
These are big questions, you’ll need to have – no, I’ll give you a second for targeted answers, and I need to bring two more in, ‘cause otherwise I’m going to – I’m going to keep a list. I’ve got the list here. Gentleman here, waiting here, in the corner. Yeah, and then we’re going to the gentleman at the back row of this group here.
Chase Sadenis
Thank you, Robin, and thank you, Mr Ambassador. Chase Sadenis from Thomson Reuters. So, this question very much relates to your point on France’s role in fighting terrorism and terrorism financing in other related financial crime activities, like human trafficking, which of course, affects all of Europe and France’s role in highlight and that from a private sector perspective, there’s a clash of two regimes, in this regard. On the one hand, we – all the financial crime obligations including the fight to fight – fight financial crime, but also terrorism of course. But, on the other hand, there’s the General Data Protection Rules, which criminals are exploiting to ensure that no other personal information is actually being processed by the personal sector. So, I’ll just highlight this because it’s a real issue. In an effect, the private sector’s caught between two regulatory regimes.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Okay, if we pass the microphone back two rows, yeah.
Jason Charalambous
Jason Charalambous, a question in a personal capacity. Ambassador, I wanted to ask you about France’s International Aid Budget. From what I believe, the AFD currently spends about 0.4% of France’s GDP on international aid. It’s quite a bit below the 0.7% UN target, which I believe only the UK meets. This is a very topical subject under the Cameron years, it’s somewhat waned from public attention, but it’s always recurring in England. I wanted to ask you what the Macron Government’s view and position on international aid is, as to whether that budget sits, how it’s applied, where, to what end? And also, if you want to shed some light on how UK aid is spent as well?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
I’ve mismanaged this day entirely ‘cause I’ve got three more people I nodded to very vigorously about half an hour ago and what I’m going to do, if you don’t mind, is just get them all down here, let you have a look through, sift, maybe they’ll overlap a little bit and then you can be the master of time. Do you mind if I do that? So, as you’ve taken the time and I think we’ve got lots of good questions, they’re very diverse. So, gentleman was very – nicely gave his question away earlier. Thank you.
Mark Clover
And I’m Mark Clover, Member of Chatham House, as of two hours ago, I think. Also, I had a question that relates to nuclear deterrents. Given recent tensions with Russia and in the Atlantic Alliance, do you believe it’s in the French national interests to expand and modernise its nuclear deterrents capability?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Simple question, modernise nuclear deterrent? Gentleman there? Gentleman there?
Oliver Colville
Thank you. Oliver Colville, Former Member of Parliament down in Plymouth and Conservative Board Director. We’ve seen, increasingly, and last night in particular, the rise in nationalism in Sweden. How are we going to be able to deal with that as an issue because frankly, if this continues, then Europe is going to look very strange and very odd?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
That fits quite nicely with the first question. So, that’s very good, and Mary, the last question.
Mary Dejevsky
Mary Dejevsky, I write for The Independent and other people. Question about Syria. You spoke about France being involved in a process that was trying to reconcile different positions, the people involved in the Syrian situa – Syrian War. I wondered whether you could say something a bit more about that.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Let’s finish up there. Sorry, Ambassador, you’ve got a number of questions, however, I’ll let you pick and choose. Five minutes max, so you’ll be…
Philippe Etienne
Well, the question about migrations and popularisms or nationalisms and European elections itself, that questions could lead me to quite a long answer, but my – in a nutshell, I would answer that the reaction we must have is to convince our people that on the collective European reaction is not only something corresponding to our values, but also, is efficient to tackle the problem and it’s obvious for us that co-operation here also, in migrations is the only way.
Co-operation among member states of the European Union also, so we need a European answer, but also co-operation with origin and transit countries to avoid humanitarian catas – to avoid that people die in the deserts or in the sea. So, we have started, for instance, last year, a new programme with the High Commissioner for Refugees, when our President invited African and European countries to Paris, and – with Nigeria and Libya, and the HCR we have started a new programme to go there and to – on the basis of the lists provided by the HCR, to identify people, which was – were in the need of protection, so that they could be taken to France immediately, without crossing the Mediterranean. But we must also – and here also, we need a collective answer, a European answer, the struggle, as I said, against human trafficking and co-operate with origin and transit countries.
So, I could expand on this, but I think to come to your question about the rise of nationalist forces, that it’s very much about this and I’m fairly confident that our people understand that it’s difficult. Here I don’t speak about the UK because as Great Britain being in Ireland, it’s in another position, but in Europe, as such, is really the European Union, is very much in the same position and we have, for instance, many migrants arriving in the South, which then are travelling to the North. It’s impossible to handle separately.
Yes, I think there was one question about the balance between privacy…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yes, and counterterrorism.
Philippe Etienne
…and counterterrorism. Obviously, it’s a major question, we have to address, both in our legislation, European legislation, National legislation. I, myself, took part in the negotiation of the General Regulation on Data Protection at the EU level. So, we have a new, quite important and detailed legislation at the EU level but, at the same time, we need, obviously, respecting this privacy of our citizens, and we need also, instruments to co-operate and to struggle against the terrorist networks. So, my answer is, we say in French, en français, en porte ouverte.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yeah, the open door.
Philippe Etienne
We are opening an already an open door, but you are perfectly right to mention the question of the balance, but the balance must be really, I would say, set at a very high-level for both goals and to be efficient in the fight against the criminal networks and terrorist organisations. But also, of course, it belongs to our model, to the European model, to grant – to secure a high-level of privacy.
The development aid. My President decided, and he confirmed this at the last speech to the Ambassadors, to raise the ratio of our public aid to the GDP, to a much higher level, which would be 0.55 in 2022. Of course, it means much, much money. It is not yet 0.7 and we admire very much what countries like the UK, Denmark, Sweden and others are doing, or Luxembourg. But we make a priority of this. Considering that Europe, as a whole, nationally, member states and global as the EU as such, is already the biggest, by far, provider of development aid and considering, also, and I come back to the Sahel to one moment, that the method is also very important.
What we look, and I mentioned the three Ds in my introduction: defence, diplomacy and development. I didn’t mention development, the third D, you give me this opportunity. When we have in Mali or another region, regions which are hit by terrorist groups, when some territories are freed from the influence of these terrorist groups, it’s absolutely vital to reintroduce public services, to reopen schools, to provide health. So, we have this consideration, which is one of our priority, but definitely yes, we will increase, very significantly, our ODA, and one – and if I may so one word, the priority clearly is education for our President, and we had, at the beginning of February in Dakar, a replenishment conference of the Global Partnership for Education, where France – President Macron took the Co-chair with President Macky Sall of Senegal and it’s very much – I mentioned Africa only at the beginning, but if you read his speech he made the University of [inaudible – 66:48] at the end of last year, you will see how important African policy is for our President, and in this framework, education plays a major role. Not only for development, but also – reasons, but also, to fight against intolerance and…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Extremism.
Philippe Etienne
…to extremism. And the priority, of course, for him, is clearly the education of girls, but it is not only his priority, it’s a quite spread priority, but around the world.
Modernisation of our nuclear capacities, was it a question you asked?
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yes, do you want to, are you going to? Is that a priority?
Philippe Etienne
Well, we have a – the answer is that in the new legislation the Parliament passed to accompany the rise in our military spending and to – in the direction of the 2%, where, for the moment, that’s a bit above 1.8%. Of course, there is – this is one of the chapters of our defence effort.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Syria was the last one.
Philippe Etienne
And Syria.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Which you can deal with, I know, in one sentence, no problem.
Philippe Etienne
I’m sorry to be too long, but the questions are so diverse and…
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yeah, there are a lot of questions.
Philippe Etienne
…yes, I mentioned it. We created a small group to have a common platform on the political settlement of the Syrian crisis between Western and Arab countries. But, we know that there are other very influential countries and the Syrian crisis can only be settled at one point, if we find common language. We have the United Nations Resolution, the 2354. We have the Special Envoy, their Special Representative, Staffan de Mistura, whom we support of course, and we try to contribute, through our dialogue, but we see now, in Idlib, how it is difficult, of course, but we try to develop our dialogue with the three Presidents of the three [inaudible – 68:49] countries. So, we did that. My President met and – them and talked to them a number of times.
Syria is really one of the most important topics, in his conversations with President Putin, with President Erdogan, and with all leaders, and with Germany, with the UK, with America, and so on. So, we try to progressively raise the level at which we can start to think of a common approach. We have this resolution of the United Nations, but for the time being, of course, we are far from agreeing on this political solution. Still, we have made some way and we support, of course, Staffan de Mistura’s efforts and we will continue to make big, big efforts on this way.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Look, thank you very much. We’ve gone over time, and it’s my apologies for not…
Philippe Etienne
Sorry.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
No, no. I let a lot of questions in, but they were all very good questions. They all deserved good answers and I apologise to those who I was not able to get to. We did not test you and our Members did not push you over the edge on Brexit, I thought, either. So, a big thank you for focusing on the topic, if I may say so. Diplomatic Advisor to the President, definitely. Diplomatic communicator as well, I would say, based on this evening. So, thank you very much for covering so many issues with detail, with precision but, as well, leaving yourself some room to still develop France’s foreign policy with your President. Thank you very much for coming today. Philippe Etienne [applause].
