Jean Loup Kuhn Delforge
As a senior French diplomat in Bulgaria how would you comment on President Jacques Chirac's recent statement on Bulgaria's position concerning the Iraqi crisis?
President Chirac's statement was not primarily a statement concerning the Iraqi crisis. It was much more an expression of concern about Europe. Some initiatives or positions have been a source of division. Above all, they have injured the ambition of a European family at last reconciled, and of a Europe with its own interests, solidarity and identity, which is fully consistent with Euro-Atlantic partnership.
As Minister Kouneva said in an article in Sega last week, during the past years France has been a strong advocate of enlargement, especially of Bulgaria and Romania, so that these two countries are not rejected from the current enlargement and get 2007 as a date for accession. In view of this constant French position, it should be clear that President Chirac's statement was in no way an opinion on the nations themselves. Nor on their future in Europe.
The EU offers an outstanding and unique framework for dialogue and consultations between member states and applicant countries. This dialogue guarantees each country the right to voice its opinion. And after all, what President Chirac said was not much different from Mr Robertson's statement about NATO at the National Assembly : "With privileges come responsibilities. New members must play a constructive role, helping the Alliance to arrive at a consensus".
Do you think that the French public backs Chirac's statement?
Yes, President Chirac was very much in line with French public opinion. He wished, in fact, to call the attention of applicant countries leaders to the necessity of taking account of western European public opinion.
What are the corner stones of solving the Iraqi issue and why is it so unacceptable for the US?
We have no difference whatsoever with the US over the goal of eliminating Iraq's programme of weapons of mass destruction, if they still exist. No evidence has been given about this yet. We believe that this must be first attempted through peaceful means. The inspectors should be given the time and capabilities that they need. Iraq meanwhile must co-operate actively. The logic must not be reversed: we don't want to make the last step before the first one. We are still in the time for inspections that have just reached their full pace; nevertheless they have already produced significant results. We have no elements allowing us to conclude the failure of the inspections. On the contrary, we have every reason to pursue, to encourage, to reinforce them concretely. We have to explore fully all the possibilities presented in resolution 1441, according to a realistic and rigorous timeline.
So far the conditions for using force against Iraq have not been fulfilled. This is why we cannot accept a second resolution, which is clearly in the logic of a hasty use of force. An illegitimate war would have incalculable consequences for the fragile Middle East; it would increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts, and compromise our fight against terrorism, which requires the unity of the whole international community. Beyond Iraq, it is the way we want to manage the world and the regional and proliferation crises which are at stake.
It is why the use of force must be the last option. We do not exclude it, as France has said all along, if the inspectors' reports conclude that we are in a blind alley. Then we would be in a second phase and the Security Council would have to take its responsibilities. France is not reluctant to use force and has resorted to military means to uphold its values several times in the past decade. This was done alongside the US, both within the framework of NATO and outside of it. When the Alliance has intervened militarily, France has been in the lead, as well as when the Alliance has kept the peace. We have stood next to the US in the fight against terrorism. My country does not hesitate to commit French troops when and where it is necessary.
But for the time being we do not have the same appreciation of the risk, the urgency of the risk, and that is why we are not in a position to agree with a war at this stage because we know that there are other ways.
Do you think that controversy between Bulgaria and France can affect Bulgaria's accession to NATO in the future?
I totally share my American colleague's view - membership of NATO does not depend on what the other countries say on the Iraq crisis, but on the quality of reforms in Bulgaria.
From the very beginning, France was in favour of the enlargement of NATO to reunify Europe. I think that NATO enlargement is such a symbol of the end of the Cold War that it is irreversible: who could oppose such a historical decision?
Considering the current "hostile" relations between France and the US, do you think that Bulgarian wines could threaten French wine exports to the US market?
I would certainly not describe US-French relations as "hostile". The two administrations agree on the common goal of disarming Iraq but they differ on the way to solve the Iraqi crisis. Nevertheless the two peoples are close friends and they have shown it on various occasions. We are the US's oldest ally and one of the few countries to have always been on the side of the US in all wars and crises since the War of Independence. We have not forgotten the freedom fighters that came from America.
About Bulgarian wine, I recall that French companies were the first exhibitors at the Plovdiv Vinaria exhibition and that we strongly support Bulgarian wine production both bilaterally and in the framework of the Phare programme.
I want to say something more personal. Wine unites people. I personally would never give up the idea of drinking fine American wines, like Californian wines for instance. Americans are amongst the best connoisseurs and critics of french wines. Please do not mix politics with the pleasure of wine.
The Bulgarian media has recalled Bulgaria's position on the Kozlodui Nuclear Power Plant and compared it to the recent controversy over Iraq, pointing out the fact that France strongly backed Bulgaria on the nuclear issue but now disagrees with Bulgaria. How would you respond to this?
The two problems are very different. France is one of the major nuclear countries therefore we understand and back the Bulgarians when they speak of energy independence and want to preserve their know how which is unique in this region. At the same time, in the framework of the EU negotiations, we ask for the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Because our citizens, like all EU citizens, expect from enlargement more security in every field.
Do you consider the recent wave of Bulgarian immigrants to France a danger to France's domestic and social security?
Definitely not. First of all Bulgaria will be a member state. Bulgarians are most welcome in France. We have hundreds of brilliant Bulgarian students in our universities. Bulgarian expats are an active and appreciated part of French society. What we have is not only a French problem; it is a French-Bulgarian common problem that we have to face jointly - crime and the mafia. We help each other, especially in the fight against people trafficking and drugs. We are very happy with the good co-operation between the two police forces.
What do you see as the main challenges Bulgaria has to meet on the rest of its way towards EU accession?
Bulgaria has many challenges to face, not only to accede to the EU, but primarily in the interest of the Bulgarian people. I see two main issues. The first one is the reform of the judiciary, which is the key reform in this country - the fight against corruption, crime and mafia, tax evasion, and foreign investment. The government is on the right track and we back its efforts.
The second problem is the improvement of the administrative capacities, to implement the European acquis and to be able in the future to manage European funds by itself.
How would you evaluate your relations with the Bulgarian government?
Relations are very good because we are on the same road, with the same goal and have many common interests. I would stress the fact that recently the French interior minister paid a very fruitful visit to Sofia, and the Bulgarian minister of agriculture and vice-minister of transport visited their French counterparts in Paris.
Which fields are likely to be of future investment interest to French business people in Bulgaria? How would you evaluate business relations on a bilateral level?
We have very good bilateral trade relations. France is the third or fourth commercial partner of Bulgaria. We want to improve the French presence here in terms of investments. By chance, French companies are not last in the world in fields like public construction, roads, tourism, energy and food industry. All these fields are priorities for Bulgaria.
What projects has the French embassy been supporting in Bulgaria?
Along with other francophone embassies, we are focusing on educational programmes, teacher training and the continuity of the 53 bilingual schools and French-speaking university branches, which have more than 800 students in various fields such as chemistry, electrical engineering, tourism, the food industry, political sciences, and management.
Is Bulgaria an attractive destination for business and tourism?
Some of our investments, like Schneider, have proved the efficiency of investing in Bulgaria as part of a global, multinational strategy. Bulgaria has a high level of educated talented people. This is not known enough abroad, especially in France, where the image of Bulgaria has to be better "sold" if I may say.
As for tourism the key for the French public is culture. It is why we are working with the Bulgarian authorities on the issue of national cultural heritage. It is also important for the image of the country abroad. French tourists appreciate the kindness and warm welcoming attitude of the Bulgarian people, but it is also important to stress that Bulgaria is not only a place with wonderful beaches and mountains, but also a place of ancient and varied culture, where you can learn something new about a different culture.
President Chirac's statement was not primarily a statement concerning the Iraqi crisis. It was much more an expression of concern about Europe. Some initiatives or positions have been a source of division. Above all, they have injured the ambition of a European family at last reconciled, and of a Europe with its own interests, solidarity and identity, which is fully consistent with Euro-Atlantic partnership.
As Minister Kouneva said in an article in Sega last week, during the past years France has been a strong advocate of enlargement, especially of Bulgaria and Romania, so that these two countries are not rejected from the current enlargement and get 2007 as a date for accession. In view of this constant French position, it should be clear that President Chirac's statement was in no way an opinion on the nations themselves. Nor on their future in Europe.
The EU offers an outstanding and unique framework for dialogue and consultations between member states and applicant countries. This dialogue guarantees each country the right to voice its opinion. And after all, what President Chirac said was not much different from Mr Robertson's statement about NATO at the National Assembly : "With privileges come responsibilities. New members must play a constructive role, helping the Alliance to arrive at a consensus".
Do you think that the French public backs Chirac's statement?
Yes, President Chirac was very much in line with French public opinion. He wished, in fact, to call the attention of applicant countries leaders to the necessity of taking account of western European public opinion.
What are the corner stones of solving the Iraqi issue and why is it so unacceptable for the US?
We have no difference whatsoever with the US over the goal of eliminating Iraq's programme of weapons of mass destruction, if they still exist. No evidence has been given about this yet. We believe that this must be first attempted through peaceful means. The inspectors should be given the time and capabilities that they need. Iraq meanwhile must co-operate actively. The logic must not be reversed: we don't want to make the last step before the first one. We are still in the time for inspections that have just reached their full pace; nevertheless they have already produced significant results. We have no elements allowing us to conclude the failure of the inspections. On the contrary, we have every reason to pursue, to encourage, to reinforce them concretely. We have to explore fully all the possibilities presented in resolution 1441, according to a realistic and rigorous timeline.
So far the conditions for using force against Iraq have not been fulfilled. This is why we cannot accept a second resolution, which is clearly in the logic of a hasty use of force. An illegitimate war would have incalculable consequences for the fragile Middle East; it would increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts, and compromise our fight against terrorism, which requires the unity of the whole international community. Beyond Iraq, it is the way we want to manage the world and the regional and proliferation crises which are at stake.
It is why the use of force must be the last option. We do not exclude it, as France has said all along, if the inspectors' reports conclude that we are in a blind alley. Then we would be in a second phase and the Security Council would have to take its responsibilities. France is not reluctant to use force and has resorted to military means to uphold its values several times in the past decade. This was done alongside the US, both within the framework of NATO and outside of it. When the Alliance has intervened militarily, France has been in the lead, as well as when the Alliance has kept the peace. We have stood next to the US in the fight against terrorism. My country does not hesitate to commit French troops when and where it is necessary.
But for the time being we do not have the same appreciation of the risk, the urgency of the risk, and that is why we are not in a position to agree with a war at this stage because we know that there are other ways.
Do you think that controversy between Bulgaria and France can affect Bulgaria's accession to NATO in the future?
I totally share my American colleague's view - membership of NATO does not depend on what the other countries say on the Iraq crisis, but on the quality of reforms in Bulgaria.
From the very beginning, France was in favour of the enlargement of NATO to reunify Europe. I think that NATO enlargement is such a symbol of the end of the Cold War that it is irreversible: who could oppose such a historical decision?
Considering the current "hostile" relations between France and the US, do you think that Bulgarian wines could threaten French wine exports to the US market?
I would certainly not describe US-French relations as "hostile". The two administrations agree on the common goal of disarming Iraq but they differ on the way to solve the Iraqi crisis. Nevertheless the two peoples are close friends and they have shown it on various occasions. We are the US's oldest ally and one of the few countries to have always been on the side of the US in all wars and crises since the War of Independence. We have not forgotten the freedom fighters that came from America.
About Bulgarian wine, I recall that French companies were the first exhibitors at the Plovdiv Vinaria exhibition and that we strongly support Bulgarian wine production both bilaterally and in the framework of the Phare programme.
I want to say something more personal. Wine unites people. I personally would never give up the idea of drinking fine American wines, like Californian wines for instance. Americans are amongst the best connoisseurs and critics of french wines. Please do not mix politics with the pleasure of wine.
The Bulgarian media has recalled Bulgaria's position on the Kozlodui Nuclear Power Plant and compared it to the recent controversy over Iraq, pointing out the fact that France strongly backed Bulgaria on the nuclear issue but now disagrees with Bulgaria. How would you respond to this?
The two problems are very different. France is one of the major nuclear countries therefore we understand and back the Bulgarians when they speak of energy independence and want to preserve their know how which is unique in this region. At the same time, in the framework of the EU negotiations, we ask for the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Because our citizens, like all EU citizens, expect from enlargement more security in every field.
Do you consider the recent wave of Bulgarian immigrants to France a danger to France's domestic and social security?
Definitely not. First of all Bulgaria will be a member state. Bulgarians are most welcome in France. We have hundreds of brilliant Bulgarian students in our universities. Bulgarian expats are an active and appreciated part of French society. What we have is not only a French problem; it is a French-Bulgarian common problem that we have to face jointly - crime and the mafia. We help each other, especially in the fight against people trafficking and drugs. We are very happy with the good co-operation between the two police forces.
What do you see as the main challenges Bulgaria has to meet on the rest of its way towards EU accession?
Bulgaria has many challenges to face, not only to accede to the EU, but primarily in the interest of the Bulgarian people. I see two main issues. The first one is the reform of the judiciary, which is the key reform in this country - the fight against corruption, crime and mafia, tax evasion, and foreign investment. The government is on the right track and we back its efforts.
The second problem is the improvement of the administrative capacities, to implement the European acquis and to be able in the future to manage European funds by itself.
How would you evaluate your relations with the Bulgarian government?
Relations are very good because we are on the same road, with the same goal and have many common interests. I would stress the fact that recently the French interior minister paid a very fruitful visit to Sofia, and the Bulgarian minister of agriculture and vice-minister of transport visited their French counterparts in Paris.
Which fields are likely to be of future investment interest to French business people in Bulgaria? How would you evaluate business relations on a bilateral level?
We have very good bilateral trade relations. France is the third or fourth commercial partner of Bulgaria. We want to improve the French presence here in terms of investments. By chance, French companies are not last in the world in fields like public construction, roads, tourism, energy and food industry. All these fields are priorities for Bulgaria.
What projects has the French embassy been supporting in Bulgaria?
Along with other francophone embassies, we are focusing on educational programmes, teacher training and the continuity of the 53 bilingual schools and French-speaking university branches, which have more than 800 students in various fields such as chemistry, electrical engineering, tourism, the food industry, political sciences, and management.
Is Bulgaria an attractive destination for business and tourism?
Some of our investments, like Schneider, have proved the efficiency of investing in Bulgaria as part of a global, multinational strategy. Bulgaria has a high level of educated talented people. This is not known enough abroad, especially in France, where the image of Bulgaria has to be better "sold" if I may say.
As for tourism the key for the French public is culture. It is why we are working with the Bulgarian authorities on the issue of national cultural heritage. It is also important for the image of the country abroad. French tourists appreciate the kindness and warm welcoming attitude of the Bulgarian people, but it is also important to stress that Bulgaria is not only a place with wonderful beaches and mountains, but also a place of ancient and varied culture, where you can learn something new about a different culture.
