France and Europe : Perceptions and relations with Obama's Administration of Change, Iowa City, Iowa, February 26, 2009

- Today's program has been made possible through the cooperation of the International Programs at the University of Iowa with additional support from Midwest One Bank and David E. Carpenter. Today's speaker is in Iowa City as part of a convocation that is being jointly held this afternoon through Saturday by two of the institutions that are part of International Programs at the University of Iowa, European Studies Group and the Crossing Borders Program. European Studies Group, of course, is a group of faculty and students who study Europe. We have regional entities, international programs for most of the major regions of the world. Crossing Borders is a different entity altogether. It actually is a program to help doctoral students becomes better international scholars. And it provides support for them to work in a number of different places, provides some support for them to do additional language training. PhD students from 12 different departments participate. So the convocation is jointly held by the two groups. What's a little different in our format is I am going to introduce the director of the European studies group, who will then introduce our speaker, rather than introduce the speaker myself. So it's a pleasure to introduce my colleague, Michel Laronde, from French and Italian, who will introduce the speaker. - Thank you Rex. I'm very thrilled to see that many people interested in hearing what our guest has to say about relations between France, Europe, and the new administration of this country. My introduction will be brief. Jean Baptiste Main de Boissiere is consul general of France in Chicago, Where he was appointed in 2007. Monsieur Main de Boissiere is a career diplomat, and he began his career as first secretary at the French embassy of Venezuela. He is a graduate from the, which is France's top school for civil service. And also, a graduate from the in Paris. And he has held several positions in both the public and the private sector over the years. Prior to being posted in Chicago, Monsieur De Boissiere was assigned special representative for business affairs in the French ministry of foreign affairs between 2003 and 2006. He was working on developing relationships between the ministry and private businesses and assisting them to analyze political risks in emerging countries mostly. And supporting diplomats to work effectively with the private sector. And last but not least, Mr. De Boissiere has also coauthored a book called, The New Frontier Of European Technology. Coauthored with Bertrand Warusfel, and with the foreword by the former French minister called Raymond Barre. So please welcome Jean-Baptiste Main de Boissiere. - Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here in this beautiful city, Iowa City. Weather is not ideal, but I don't think it's much better in Chicago or in Paris. I will address the issue of the Trans-Atlantic relation under one specific angle, which is the angle of perceptions. And I will try to stress the importance of perceptions and how they shape, to a certain extent, to a certain extent only, the political agenda. My main message today is that there are two main perception related issues impacting in one way or the other, the Trans-Atlantic relation. And one is more important than the other, and it's not the one you think. So these two issues are first, the specific dimension of the French-American relation. And the other one is how European institutions are perceived in the US. And I would contend, that's somewhat of a hot stretch, that maybe the most difficult issue is not the issue of the French-American relationship and the way the French are perceived in the US and the other way around, it's maybe that the issue of how the European institutions and the European Union in particular is perceived in the US, and what is the consequence of this perception on the political agenda. Now, I will develop all this in four different points. First, I'm gonna say a few words about Nicolas Sarkozy, and how he has weighed on the French-American relation in a very positive manner. My second point will be about the election of Barack Obama in the US. And what's the perception of this election, and its consequences in France and in Europe. My third point will be about the decision making process in Europe and how it is perceived as complex and sometimes, inefficient by Americans. And my last point will be about what could be our common agenda between the US and Europe. So let me start by the impact that our president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has on the French-American relationship. As you're probably aware, our president has made a certain number of moves. We have captured the attention of the public, both in Europe and in your country, and I'd say for the better. Immediately after he was elected, in his victory speech, one of the points that Sarkozy raised was the friendship between France and the United States. And he said very clearly that he had a great personal admiration for the US. He said that we were friends, friends forever. But like friends, or like family members, you have to recognize that it's legitimate for your friend to have his own point of view. So sometimes we have to agree that we might have different point of views. But that was a call for, I would not say a reconciliation, because we had nothing to reconcile, really, but for a warming up, for a deepening of the ties between the two countries. The second move he made was the most original one, he spends his vacations in the US. And with Sarkozy, nothing is coincidental. That was not you know, just why don't we go to the US, I'm president and I'd like to go to the US for a change, no, it was a political move, clearly. And the subtext was that he was serious and that was a personal thing. A political and a personal thing. And the third move, I'm going to come back to it, was his visit to Washington, state visit to Washington in November, 2007. Where he had the opportunity to speak before the congress and to make a very emotional speech about the friendship between France and the US. I was honored because I had the opportunity to attend this speech. And attend, also, a ceremony where he presented a few World War II veterans with the legion of honor. And I accompanied one of these veterans, someone from the Midwest, I have 13 states in the Midwest in my constituency, and we have a lot of veterans from World War II in the Midwest. What are the motivations of our president here? Clearly, they are personal convictions. And one of the qualities of our president is that he's very direct, in a way, he's blunt. If he thinks something, he says it, very openly. And if he likes someone, he tells him. The flip side of the coin is that if he doesn't like someone, he tells him also. He's quite famous for this. But he likes the US, and that's something personal. And he's very clear, transparent about it. But there's also, I would say, the approach of the statesmen here. As I would have occasion to say today, I'd say again and again there are two key words characterizing our foreign Policy under Nicolas Sarkozy. It's proactive and it's pragmatic. Nicolas Sarkozy is a very proactive man and is a very pragmatic man. So if you consider the agenda, the international agenda, if you consider the complexity of the matters, the difficulty to find appropriate solution, the changing landscapes, the disillusion, if you're not able to work with your friends, if you're not able to coordinate, then you're in trouble. We all have to work together. So that was clearly what, according to me, I mean, one of the motivations of the president is to create the conditions for a more fruitful and more result-oriented, working together between France and the US. Now, I'd like to give an example of this change. Because initially, people wondered, in France, does he tell us about what he likes, that he likes Elvis Presley, that's what he told the congress. Or is that a really fundamental political change? People were a bit skeptical. And it turns out that is it, I mean, this has to be confirmed, it has been present only for 18 years, a rather fundamental political change from a long period of good relations but with always some ambiguity from both sides, France being perceived in the US as a difficult partner, one creating problems. And the US being perceived in France as a country having a tendency to some form of imperialism. So it is possible, it is possible that really, we have entered a new phase. So let me give you the example of NATO. What the president said nearly immediately is that he was considering France coming back to NATO, and here, we have to be a little specific, because actually, we never left the alliance, we withdrew from the military structure of the alliance, the alliance. And even, we joined over the last 10 years a lot of committees which are dealing with military issues. So we are talking as much about symbols than operation aspects. Operation aspects are also present, but it's not like a black and white situation. However, from a political standpoint, to say that France was considering fully assuming its role as a NATO member was a watershed. It was subjected to two main conditions. First that we should have responsibilities in the organization according to our rank and our importance as a country, and second, that progress would be made on the other front, which is the construction of European defense, which is one of the objectives of France for Europe. Actually, we are coming closer to a full reintegration in NATO. There will be an important summit organized both in France and Germany, on both sides of the French-German border. This is also very symbolic, and it's possible that a major announcement will be made there. This is an example where perceptions and substance are intertwined. There is a debate now in France about whether or not this is a good move. And you gave a lot of politicians from the right or from the left saying is this a good move. So it means that perceptions are still very, very present because politicians in France, some politicians are asking, and I think it's a very legitimate question, are we losing something? And the goal is decided that we should be fully autonomous when it came to defense, and now we are about to reintegrate the organization. So are we not losing some room for maneuver, and it's a legitimate question. Even though, again, perceptions, a poll straw, that 60, or let's say two thirds of the French population are in favor of getting back to NATO. And substance is, of course, important because if we are a member of NATO fully again, it means that we will have to assume political and military commitment. So it's a very important subject. Now I'd like to turn to my second point, which is about the election of Barack Obama and the perception in Europe and in France. And here, as you know, I have very good news. I mean, the French voted massively for Barack Obama, 93%. Well, of course, it was virtual votes, I mean, they were asked for whom they would support, and they said, a huge majority, that they were supporting Barack Obama. And in Europe, I think the percentage was much lower, something like 80%. So you see, very divided opinion in Europe about Barack Obama. So why is it that the election of Barack Obama has generated such enthusiasm? I see three major reasons. The first one is that our sense is that the Americans have consciously rejected the previous unilateral policies of the Republican administration. And this is something I have witnessed again and again talking to people from the Midwest. And even I was struck, just I land in Chicago, go to my first dinner and shake hands with someone, before I even open the mouth, it's rather rare you know, that someone speaks before me, I'm rather talkative. So he said we are sorry for our foreign policy, we're really sorry about the image we give to the world. And you know, I was about to comfort them, you know, say you are changing. And so I think really, that the American people have had you know, difficulty with the image that was reflected in the world public opinion, and that they have rejected unilateralism in voting for the democratic candidate, at least this is our perception. But as I told you, I think there is quite some substance in it. Second reason is that we've seen the election of Barack Obama as a very strong signal. Probably the strongest ever of the US to the rest of the world that America is promoting diversity. And for us, it's very important because if you speak to a French man, if you speak to a European, again, perception, the world is by definition, a diverse world. There is no one truth, you know, standing somewhere out there. Of course, we have deep convictions about democracy, human rights, providing assistance to people, protecting our planet. But we have diversity of cultures, and this has to be not somewhere lost in the international agenda, it has to be at the very forefront of the international agenda. So this signal is a very strong signal. And the consequence will be that the US will change its attitude, its message, it has changed already, to the world. And will be more inclined to consider joining the international communities on a lot of issues. Global warming, international convention to promote cultural diversity, you name it. I'm not saying that everything will be done the way we Europeans, and maybe other countries wish, but there will be a significant change. Last point, I would say this is the triumph of Martin Luther King, of course. Who would have thought in the 60s that the Americans would elect an African American. And it's also a demonstration that the civil rights movement has come to fruition, especially if you consider that the integration of African Americans in American society, though far from being complete, and there is a lot of segregation, for instance, and Chicago has made enormous progress, and the numbers sustain this. My third point is about Europe, and it's a key point. Because I really believe that that might be one of the most pressing points to tackle between Europeans and the Americans where I will not speak about misunderstanding, this is maybe a bit too strong. I would talk about cost of opportunity. So let me detail a little bit. First of all, one has to realize that there is a fundamental asymmetry between the US and Europe. In the US, the institutions have preceded and shaped political life, and the history of the country. You can argue, I don't know what you would think, but that without the American constitution, the result of the secession war might have been different. So really, the institutions, the constitution, has preceded the political history of this country. In Europe, it's completely reversed. The political history of Europe has preceded and made possible the European integration. So it makes no sense to think that we could have the United States of Europe, the fundamentals are essentially different. And we have to accept the idea that Europeans' institutions are in a category of its own. It's not a nation-state, it's something different. This asymmetry has led very bright people in the US to think that the European Union was not very serious partners, at least when it comes to non-economic matters. And you will know the famous joke of Henry Kissinger, but actually, I had a story told by a former French minister, which is quite funny, it seems that it happened in France. And he was invited to speak by the French parliament. And so he was about to make a speech, to give a speech, and he asked for a telephone. Why a telephone? Because we wait for your speech, Mr. Secretary of State. He said give me your telephone. So someone rushes to find a telephone. Eventually, they bring him the telephone, and he says give me Europe. He said I wanna talk to Mr. Europe, what's his telephone number. Of course, we didn't have the telephone number of Mr. Europe. So this is the whole story of Henry Kissinger's quote about Europe doesn't have, not having a telephone number. But again, perceptions, this tells you volumes about the perceptions of Americans, that Europe is a somewhat fuzzy concept, and not a true partner when it comes to very tough matters. Engaging war or not, or negotiating a peace agreement. Now, guess what, to a very large extent, people wonder also, in Europe, about these kinds of things. And there's a lot of questions marks about whether or not Europe can go from an economic giant, which it is, to a more political and more cohesive entity. What I would plead here is that this is a very serious issue. I was talking about cost of opportunity. It's very hard to imagine a very satisfactory and fruitful relation between the US and Europe if there is no dialogue between an entity representing the US and an entity representing Europe. So there might be a cost of opportunity by not recognizing that there is a European Union and that it is a growing force. Now also, one thing which has crossed my mind, and I think it is very Important, is that you could even lead, get to a situation whereby the US has a sort of preference dealing with China, for instance, versus dealing with the European Union because, I'm not at all criticizing, or expressing any resentment, I'm just trying to put things in perspective, but there's some form of, justified, to a large extent, fascination in the US for the rising power which China is, undoubtedly. And I think that Americans who are pragmatic people can see what they can negotiate with China. They can negotiate China continuing to pursue, to purchase treasury bonds, that's very important, but they can also negotiate liberation of the Chinese market. There are a lot of geopolitical issues with Taiwan, Singapore. Even the relation with Russia. They know that someone is in charge when they engage the Chinese. So if we fail to address this perception issue regarding the European Union, we might end up in a situation where paradoxically, it would be more difficult to work together between Europeans and Americans, where as we share the same culture, the same languages, the same values, than working with big, emerging countries like China. Now, I wanna say a word about France, and to illustrate what I'm telling to you a little further and in a little bit more practical manner. Europe, and the European Union, specifically for France, means several things. I mean, first of all, it's really the focus of our diplomatic activity because we also, obviously, have, actually, there's two kinds of diplomatic activities. The one we have within the European Union, which is an international organization like other international organizations. So we keep negotiating within the European Union. It's a very heavy, very active, very intense machinery. And second level, we have a lot of bilateral relation with all our European Partners. And obviously the relation we have with our partners are at the heart of our foreign policy. I mean, the comparison, you can make, but it's not valid. It understates the importance of our own relation with our neighbors, is the comparison with Mexico, the kind of relation you have with Mexico, or Canada, this is very important, but it's far less important than the relation we have, we French people, with the Brits, the Germans, the Italians, the Pols, the Spaniards, et cetera, et cetera. Now, even more importantly, our interaction with the world goes through two channels. The first one is the channel of our foreign diplomacy, broadly speaking, diplomacy, all kids of contacts we have, as the French nation, with the rest of the world. But the other channel is the European Union. We have transferred massive amounts of competences to the European Union. Trade matters, it's an exclusive competency of the European Union. Fair competition, I;s an exclusive competition of the European Union. Any issue dealing with the policies, the European policies, like common agricultural policies, this is the exclusive competence of the European Union. The overall relation with Russia makes absolutely no sense to imagine a French-Russian relation without including the kind of relation that Germany, or other countries have with Russia. We're talking about energy here, the supply of energy, the problem with Ukraine, these are Europeans' problems, so it makes absolutely no sense for us to engage Russia or to confront Russia without, or outside of the European context. Now, I'm going to give you an example, which is an industrial example, which shows how important Europe is, even if, even when Europe is not present enough in our view. It's the automobile crisis. So we have been criticized, we French people, because we, by our neighbors, because we just adopted a plan to support our industry, six billion dollars, or six billion euros, which is nothing, you know, compared to the limited amount of money that are poured in the economy by the new administration. But yet, we've been criticized by our neighbors. And they were understandably worried that we would favor, and that's exactly what we're doing, the French companies, at the detriment of their competitors. I mean, that's not what we're doing in the sense that we're supporting the production of cars in France, in a context which is extremely tough, with very dire industrial and social consequences. But why did we have to do that? We had to do that because there was no European approach on how to tackle the rules of the automobile industry. And that's something we don't really have in Europe, I mean, we are good at selling long term policies, but we are not that good at stepping in and adopting measures, taking initiatives when in times of crisis. So it means, through this example, that again, trying to think about any kind of move, and I forgot to say that the position of the French government is that they call, or they really implore the European commission to step in and present a plan for the European car industry, and we would be most happy to put our own plan under the banner of Europe. So it means that you can't speak about France without speaking about Europe. And this is a very practical and down to earth example. Now, I'm going to tackle maybe a bit too quickly, my last point, which is about our common agenda, and try to illustrate what we mean, what our president means, when he says that there is a series of urgent challenges which have to be tackled, and which need to be addressed in a working spirit, putting aside pride or question of precedence, or whether this is the right institution, the right channel, because we can't wait. Peace in the middle east, this is one item where the US has a form of leadership, but where Nicolas Sarkozy has said very clearly when he was president of the European Union that Europe has more than its say, to say, and we want to contribute. And the point here is that we think that we can't wait. We can't wait. Everybody knows the problem, everybody knows a solution to, there have been certain different, different treaty plans, and they have been agreed in 2000 under what is called the Taba negotiations, under the auspices of President Clinton, by the way. And our position is that waiting until the situation improves, which kind of improvement is possible, or waiting until we see more clearly, is not the way to go. I mean, when you see, and that's really the position of our president when you see a serious problem, we wanna address it immediately. And we think that waiting only makes things worse. I'm really, I'm sorry, skipping from one point to the other, but that's just to illustrate the larger point. The same idea of urgency and coordinated action applies to the financial crisis. Some good thing have happened under the French presidency when Sarkozy was very instrumental in coordinating the rescue plan adopted by the European Union, and he was also instrumental in convincing the Bush administration to organize a G20 meeting to try to see to which extent we could have a coordinated response from the G20 members to the financial crisis. We can see very clearly now that the crisis is still there. And if anything, matters have deteriorated, and the worries have accumulated on the financial market. So at the same time, over the last three or four months, we haven't made many progress in coordinating our position. And seeing how we can join efforts to get out of the crisis. And we really think that the idea that even the US could rescue itself alone without coordinating with others is total nonsense. We have to work together. So we are expecting a lot from the next G20 meeting. But this is clearly one of the examples of this proactive philosophy I was talking about, that we can't wait. And we have to work together, this is the two things. Urgency and the need for coordinated action. We might have a little bit more time to work on the two issues I'm suggesting. But when I say a little bit more time, it's not in terms of years, it's really in terms of months. The first one being the reform of international institutions. We can't continue to have a G8 summit, which excludes China or India or Brazil, it doesn't make sense. We have to reform the United Nations. And here, we completely share Barack Obama's words that the UN is indispensable, but it's imperfect. We also think that the UN is imperfect. The first thing to do is to make it more representative of the world as it is today. And the last issue I will mention is the environment. Here also, it's a matter of months, not years. I mean, we can't wait because if we wait for 10 years, then the damage will be irreversible, as the scientists are telling us. And as Al Gore, as you know, is very clear about it. So this is one of the areas where we really expect, and we have good indications, good prospects when we listen to the Obama administration, we really expect the US to not only join the international community in adopting the cap and trade mechanism, but take the leadership. Because the US economy is the biggest economy in the world, and consequently, is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, CO2. So all these are very pressing matters. What is at stake is peace, security, the future of the world, a generation, and we must act together. I mean, there is no time for frictions or hesitation between Europeans and Americans, between French and Americans. There is really time for action. Now, as a way of conclusion, I'd like again, to come back to the two major perception issues I have identified. Regarding the French-American relation, and I have not dwelt too much into the many hiccups or the ups and downs of the French-American relation, we can come back to that later if you want. What I like is the term of volatility, you know, I'm sort of a market guy also. And you know, there's a lot of talk about volatility in the markets. So there has been a lot for volatility in the French-American indicator over the last two centuries. But we have never lost sight of the fundamentals. And the markets can be volatile, but they can move in one direction. Unfortunately, the market is very low, but it will rebound, so it's two different concepts. And we have never lost sight of the fundamentals. And there are three, the first one is that we have a common history, and everlasting friendship. And this is what we always have to come back to in times of doubt, this friendship. Which is so spontaneous, and which is a gift, I would say. The second aspect is that we have identical values. And the more time I spend in the US, the more convinced I am of this. And the third thing is that we have a shared agenda, as I tried to illustrate. And not only, we have also a shared responsibility, because we are blessed countries, we are democracies, we have peace, we have been able, with difficulties, to cope with diversity, immigration. We have a strong standing in the world, so we must do what's right. And we must do it together. Now, my second perception issue with regarding the US-EU relation, I would say that again, the EU is a strange animal. It's what we could call a quasi-federation of nation states. Jacques Delors, the former president of the European commission said that we were a federation of nation states, let's say quasi-federation of nation states. So it means that we are very integrated in some areas. We also have of course, I forgot to mention, but a single currency for most of the European countries, it's a major plus. But there's the word nation states. So this is this animal that Americans must learn to deal with. And does that mean that France doesn't matter, not at all. Because France will always be France, that's for sure. And we are one of the leaders, if not the leader of Europe. I mean, it was Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman who were at the origin of the European Union. Jacques Delors was one of the best, if not the best European commissioner. And we are at the very center, and the very core of Europe. Geographically, but also, we are a sort of liaison between the northern Europe, more protestant, more english speaking, and the south of Europe, more Catholic and Latin. So there's every reason to rely on France in engaging the European Union. The other side being that our policies will be increasingly dependent on this European venture, adventure, I would say, that is going on. Which is our future to us French and Europeans. Thank you very much for your attention. - Now, before I have a chance to look at everybody else's questions, let me ask one of the many questions I hope to be able to discuss with you before we're through today, not necessarily right now, later, but and that is what you would like to see or what the government of France would like to see as modifications or replacement of the Bretton Woods organizations given that they were designed 60 years ago for a very different global economy, and given the kind of global economic problems we have at the moment. - Maybe you read every morning the statements of our president, because this is exactly what he says. You know, what he says is that Bretton Woods is outdated because we are in the 21st century, and the world has changed. Now, every head of state is facing this very big question, is that seems to be a consensus to change Bretton Woods, but to do what? There are a few things which are fairly obvious in my view. The first one is representativity. As the other global institutions, Bretton Woods, sorry, the world bank, and the IMF, which are the two most important institutions following the Bretton Woods agreement are not representative of today's world. And they fail to represent a country like China, which is supporting, like, you know, what's the, I think it's Hercules who is supporting the world, if you remember, this-- - [Audience] Atlas. - Atlas, yeah, so something like this, because there are 700 billion dollars, treasury bonds, which are held be the Chinese, so if the Chinese walk out, you are in trouble, and we are in trouble. So not having them properly represented in this institution doesn't make sense, so that's the first thing. The second thing, and that is really a strong belief of Europeans, this is also one of the points that President Obama, candidate Obama raised again and again in his campaign, is the importance of proper regulation. For us, Europeans, it's fairly obvious that the regulators have failed to address the systematic failures of the financial markets. And the absence of a proper regulatory framework has played a very important role in the eruption of the crisis and the inability of our countries to address what was happening, i.e., major distortion and major mistakes in the way the financial markets were working. So we are planning for an enhanced and overhauled regulation which has to have an international dimension. All this is not at an operational stage. There are some specific issues which have been pinpointed, like the need to regulate all kinds of actors, including for instance, hedge funds, the role of rating agencies, but I think these are relatively minor issues, I mean, in themselves, they are huge, but this is relatively minor issues against the necessity to have a better understanding of what it takes to regulate a modern economy in the 21st century. So the issue of regulation is certainly very important. I'd venture to introduce a third issue, which is the issue of global imbalance. I was impressed when I read, well, he's not the treasury secretary, but he was a very important person in administration, so I read an interview of Hank Paulson, and he said to me, Hank Paulson, the biggest reason behind the present crisis are the global imbalances. And I was very interested because for years, the administration, the Bush administration questioned the view of many economists that the global imbalances were really a threat to the stability of the world economy. I personally, and this is a rather French point of view, believe that he's right, and that you can't have a situation whereby year after year, the US economy has to get finance from the rest of the world for 6% of its GDP. That's the situation we had over the last five to six years because the deficit of current accounts was astounding. Six to seven hundred billions. And then there is another question, who is to bear the blame? Because maybe it's not only the US, maybe it's also the emergent countries who have hoarded the currency, that's another subject. So there is a huge challenge, little road map, a little blueprint, but this is a few hints I can give you. - Good, good, thank you. A series of questions have to do with several of the conflicts going on in the world, and the ongoing problem of terrorism, let me try to meld those together by asking, and particularly given the fact that France is Europeans' most Muslim country, other than Albania, I think. In terms of the Western Europe, at least, there are more Muslims in France than anywhere else. How does France look at the problem of global terrorism, and particularly look at that problem, given the situation in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan in terms of how we should be addressing this so we have less susceptibility to terrorism and more likelihood of peace. - It's a big question with many dimensions. First of all, terrorism is a plague, a scourge. Terrorists have to be fought with extreme severity. And I think nobody questions the involvement, along with the Americans, of all our security forces, our justice, because this is very important to fight terrorism. Don't forget that we were confronted in the past to very bloody terrorist acts on our territory. It was in the 80s, especially. So it's a permanent fight. Number two, our deepest conviction is that the big mistake to be avoided is to engage in a conflict of civilization. So in that term, picturing the problem of terrorism as the consequence of a conflict between the Muslim world and the Christian world is a huge mistake, that nobody here has made, you know, this is a mistake that George Bush didn't make. And immediately after 9/11, he visited a mosque. But this is very important, and it means that we have to do things right. And it means, that for instance, we have to be more proactive on reaching peace in the middle east, which is the most pressing subject to avoid a clash of civilization. Number three, I'm not sure that I'm addressing all these various questions, but we do support the efforts of Americans in Afghanistan, and we have done so since the very beginning, 2001. And as you know, president Sarkozy has stepped up our level of involvement. And we are more than ready, we have started discussing already with the Obama administration about how best to address the situation in Afghanistan knowing that our deep conviction is that there can be no military solution without a political solution. And therefore, it is even more important to address the political situation in Afghanistan than the military situation, which is not good either. Maybe I've missed one of your points. - I think you got pretty much, good going. Perhaps related, perhaps on a different dimension, some of the questions have to do with the relationships of Europe, and more generally, of NATO, with Russia. And particularly things like the debate over whether NATO missiles should be flying over Russia. But more generally, the way that France and the EU see Russia should be treated given the strengths and weaknesses that Russia has and the potential for problems if those issues aren't handled with some delicacy. - On Russia, there has to be, and there has been a balancing act. As you know, our president was extremely instrumental in hammering out a ceasefire agreement with Russia and Georgia this summer. So essentially, he stopped a war. What I'm talking about a balancing act is that on the one hand, we think that developments have not been very good, really, regarding Russia in 2008. And that the invasion of Georgia was unacceptable. Also, we are very uncomfortable with the way Russians are dealing with energy, the supply of energy. Now, they are our neighbors. This is a big country. It's not the cold war, and we don't want to come back to the cold war. And it's an imperfect regime, but you know, if you compare with China, it's more democratic than China, for instance. So what we wanna do is to, and this is a European position, we want to engage Russia to a deeper, a more fruitful relation, which would demonstrate to them that the path they've been pursuing on this aspect is not the right one. And I'm confident we can engage them. Now, I'd like to come back to this issue of France and the Muslim population. Because this is a misperception I find again and again. I think there is a confusion in the US between the issue of immigration and the integration of French people from North African origin and religion. There is a confusion. Because we don't have a Muslim problem in France. Some people tell me you have a Muslim problem, we don't have a Muslim problem in France. We have an issue with the fact that a lot of immigrants have been segregated in poor areas and this has generated immense frustration, which has led to unrest. But the religion itself is not a threat, there is no threat of Islamism in France. And during this unrest, for instance, the issue of religion was never a subject. So I'm not questioning that the conflict in the middle east could resonate in France in a certain way, that's why we're so keen on making progress, but the perception that France is in a way limited, impacted, by the fact that we have roughly five or six French people, or immigrants of Muslim religion is a complete misperception. - Well, there are several more excellent question, but I'm afraid the time has come that we're gonna have to end here today. We've reached the time to conclude today's program. On behalf of the Iowa City Foreign Relations Council, we wanna thank the consul General of France for sharing with us his understanding of Europe and France with perceptions on the Obama administration. I wish to thank our sponsors, international programs at the University of Iowa, Midwest One Bank, and David E. Carpenter. If you have any questions about joining ICFRC, please call the office, 335-0351. If you enjoy listening to the program on the radio or watching on TV, please consider supporting our organization by sending a contribution to ICFRC 1111 University Capital Center, Iowa City, 52242, we are adjourned. - Thank you. - Thank you.