 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
E-mail your letter to the editor
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
Converging on The Middle |
 |
|
|
|
|
Hubert Védrine, 54, has been France's
Foreign Minister under Prime Minister Lionel Jospin since 1997. He
recently talked about France's place in the world with TIME's JAMES
GRAFF and BRUCE
CRUMLEY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, April 14, 2002; 15.05GMT
Is it bad for France that
the U.S. is the world's only superpower? The foreign policy of all the world's countries
is defined in reference to American power. That's why I call America
a hyper-power — not as a critique, but as a pure description
of fact. Does that mean France no longer counts at all? Certainly
not. Does it mean France has to accept that it is merely a medium-sized
power? We can't say that either. I've always combated a certain presumptuous
view France has of itself, but I don't defend the contrary. France
should not undervalue itself or be self-deprecating.
Does France feel compelled to create an alternative
to U.S. power? The goal of French foreign policy can't
be to oppose the U.S. Our objectives are positive — to help
construct a Europe where it is agreeable to live but which also has
influence in the world, to contribute to a lasting solution in the
Middle East, to reduce world poverty. We prefer to be in partnership
with the Americans, but obviously that has to interest them, which
is not always the case. When we agree, so much the better. When we
disagree, we say so.
Are the French coming to see Brussels primarily as a place
that pushes for more market-oriented policies?
Védrine: There is a contradiction between the French
attachment to public services, which is real, and the liberal push
from Brussels, but that doesn't create an anti-European sentiment
here. We're permanently discussing how to harmonize economic dynamism
with social protection. Most Europeans like America, but they have
no desire to have an American society. Maybe some aspects —
investments, the spirit of entrepreneurship — but not a place
with very little social protection. Finding the right balance is the
European discussion par excellence.
Why is France always on the non-liberalizing end of
that discussion? France is a lot more liberal than it was
in the past. The political positions voiced in France often sound
quite restrictive, while in practice we've opened up a great deal
to the marketplace. But no one wants to emulate Britain's railroads.
Nor on the other hand do we want a public service that costs too much
or is laden with bureaucracy.
Are the presidential elections being reduced to a popularity
contest? In all the big democracies in this media-dominated
age we see political positions converging. In France it is more striking
because this is a highly politicized country that has lived for a
long time with the idea that there is a radical difference between
the right and the left. People who remember the great clashes between
left and right might say there's no difference nowadays. But if we
look at it more seriously, in a modern way, one very well sees differences
between the two main candidates — in economic policies, fiscal
policies, on security, in social policies. In the end, I think the
people will vote on those points, not just on the personalities of
the candidates.
|
|
