Mediapart: The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris (COP 21) is more of a diplomatic success than an environmental one given that climate change has only worsened since 2015. Donald Trump perhaps intends to call the Paris agreement into question. What will you say to him when you meet him at the NATO summit in Brussels on May 25th and 26th?
Emmanuel Macron: I will make this one of three principal subjects for discussion: we have collective security issues to talk about, the climate, and economic questions. About the climate, his interest […] and what civil society wants, as does also the American economic sector, is to decline the engagements of the COP 21 agreement. And so I will do everything in order that he stays within it.
If he decided to leave this path, he would be taking on a major responsibility with regard to the planet and its peoples. I will very strongly call upon China [for support]. There is a transformation of China’s awareness about the world, and the current president, who one could have considered at first sceptical about climate issues, has totally integrated climate engagements within the transformation of the Chinese model. It is part of what constitutes its planetary consciousness. And so one must work with China. If this Europe-China duopoly is established we will change the position of the United States.
Mediapart: The French army is engaged on several fronts abroad, notably so since François Hollande became president. The situation is worsening and terrorist groups are simply being reinforced. What is the Macron doctrine on this issue? Providing more means for military intervention?
E.M.: I wouldn’t link the two. There is a military path that is necessary, to which I have made budgetary pledges. Why? Because there is [a need for] equipment, the modernisation of the army. Today we have the world’s second [most important] armed forces and we must maintain that situation for our protection. There may be, because there is the imponderable, interventions. And there is the nuclear dissuasion force that I want to maintain because it is an element of our military and diplomatic credibility, and that implies investment during [my] five-year term of office.
On the other hand, on the question of the doctrine of how this is employed, my disagreement with [official French policy during] the past ten years is that I believe we have yielded somewhat to the neoconservative tendency, and sometimes unfortunate interventions. I’m thinking of Libya, but not only that. I want to return to a French filiation that I would call "Gaullist-Mitterrandian"[1] or "Chiracian"[1]. Which means that armed intervention has a sense when it is within the framework of a diplomatic roadmap. There where there is a danger and imbalance, our worst enemy - after the jihadists and Islamic terrorists - are failed states. I will do everything to maintain the stability of states. I’m thinking notably of Syria.
Mediapart: On these questions you are in agreement with the position of Dominique de Villepin [2], who called on the electorate to vote for you?
E.M.: Totally.
Mediapart: But at the same time, your campaign team includes Gérard Araud, France’s ambassador to the US, whose position is completely contrary to that of Dominique de Villepin. Araud’s nickname in the French foreign affairs ministry is “head of the sect”. He is the symbol of neoconservatives within the French diplomatic services.
E.M.: I am a man of debate, who enjoys complexity. It is important to have people who don’t think the same as oneself. If you want to deduce nominations from that, I won’t encourage you. Gérard Araud is a leading French diplomat. I don’t share his positions on certain isuues but I always listen to him because he has a very good understanding of the American and United Nations’ systems. Just as I also discuss with [France’s permanent representative to the UN] François Delattre, who doesn’t at all share the same positions [as Gérard Araud], who I listen to a great deal.
Mediapart: Why are you against a unilateral recognition of Palestine, whereas numerous countries have done so for some while?
E.M.: Because I have a pragmatic position. We have a Palestinian leader who is rather moderate, who has taken his responsibilities. And we have a hardening of the Israeli position. With real questions of insecurity. I respect the Israeli democracy, [but] with disagreement over the non-respect of the Oslo Accords. To recognise Palestine in a unilateral manner, does that serve to advance the debate on the ground? It is totally counter-productive. The day after [a unilateral recognition of Palestine], I don’t speak for a second more with the state of Israel.
I defend the principle of two states, France’s engagement in favour of it, and condemnation of colonization. But it is another thing to unilaterally recognise Palestine which, at the period we are living through, is a factor of imbalance which means that you lose all relations with the Israeli state. To unilaterally recognise Palestine today, in this context, is to choose one camp while completely cutting off with another. The strength of French diplomacy is to have always maintained this balance which makes us one the rare partners who speak to both. I want to keep that. If we want to be useful to humanity, to the region and to all those who live there, it is [to have] the capacity to speak to both which is effective.
Mediapart: Does this diplomatic pragmatism include the case of Russia? Are you in favour of maintaining European Union sanctions against Russia?
E.M.: I have declared myself in favour of the Minsk Protocol. I am for the maintaining of sanctions for as long as this protocol is not respected, and for an evaluation of the protocol as soon as possible. I don’t want the issue to be blocked by a situation of sterilization, where the two parties do not respect the protocol. Now, the real difficulty with the Minsk Protocol is that Ukraine itself is deviating from it. You will grant me that I have little servility towards Russia. [I have the] pragmatism to say that one must talk to Russia about the Syrian question because they are sitting around the [discussion] table. We have a common history, and I make a distinction between the Russian people and their leader. But we do not have the same values as Vladimir Putin. When he infringes international law, a process is put in place. It must be respected.
Mediapart: Would you also speak of “not having the same values” as the president of the United States?
E.M.: No. I am not persuaded that I am very clear on what the values of Donald Trump are. And American democracy has not changed its nature with the arrival of Donald Trump. There are unexplained and unexpected decisions, but there is a very strong democracy, with leverage, counter powers. He is someone who is in the process – I hope – of honing his vision of things. For me, these are two very separate cases.
Mediapart: You received the support of the former Greek economy minister Yannis Varoufakis. Are you for the partial or total effacing of the Greek debt?
E.M.: I am for the principle of a concerted restructuring of the Greek debt, and the maintaining of Greece within the eurozone, because the system is today untenable. There must be safety locks, securities, the reaching of a collective agreement. But we all know that we must get [to a restructuring of the debt] there. I have often said that a religious war is played out in Europe between Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists. The camp of those states so-called as serious argues “you have sinned and you must pay until the end of time”. It is the Greek leaders who were at fault. But the Greek people were lied to, whereas it is they who pay.
There is no possibility of retrieving a stable society and economy within the euro at the current level of debt. There must be reforms, a reinforcement of the Greek state. I am not in favour of the exit of whoever from the eurozone. I am in favour of a restructuring of the Greek debt as of the summer of 2015. But it’s one thing to being in favour, while another is to obtain a collective decision. This battle must be led. I will lead it because it is unavoidable and it will restore collective credibility.
-------------------------
1: A reference to the foreign policies of former French presidents Charles de Gaulle, François Mitterrand, and Jacques Chirac.
2: Dominique de Villepin is a former French conservative prime minister (2005-2007) and a career diplomat who served as France's foreign affairs minister between 2002-2004 when he notably spoke out at the United Nations against the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
-------------------------
- The video of Mediapart's interview with Emmanuel Macron (in French) is available in full here.
English version by Graham Tearse