President Sarkozy's speech and Press conference on the G20 Agenda for 2011

Mesdames et Messieurs, bonjour.

Mesdames et Messieurs, bonjour. Mesdames et Messieurs, bonjour. Mesdames et Messieurs, bonjour. Merci. Thank you for having stood up. You didn't have to, but I'm very touched that you did. Mesdames et Messieurs, bonjour. Prime Minister, my dear François, ladies and gentlemen, ministers, for the very first time, the diplomatic corps has been invited to a press conference, and insofar as this is the beginning of the year where we express our wishes for the year. I would like, ladies and gentlemen, ambassadors, for you to pass on to your heads of state and government the warm regards of France to them and to their peoples.

And to you, ladies and gentlemen of the press, I wish you all the best for 2011, the year where much is happening, and I wish these wishes go to you individually also. I have a special thought for your colleague, Lucas Mebrook-Dolega, who was fatally injured whereas he was covering events in Tunisia. My thoughts go out to his family, to those who loved him. Lucas Mebrook-Dolega was simply doing his job as a journalist, a difficult job. a demanding job, requiring passion and courage, and Lucas lacked neither. He was very well known here at the Elysée. He often came here with his great professionalism, discretion, and kindness. He was liked by one and all.

And I know that today, many of you deeply grieve to have seen such the loss of such a great photographer. And I imagine that for many of you, he was also a friend. And I also have a special thought for Hervé Guéquierre and Stéphane Tapponnier, your two colleagues who have been held hostage in Afghanistan over the last 391 days, which is terrible anguish for their families, all state services have been fully mobilized in order to achieve their release both in Paris and Afghanistan. And we will spare no efforts to put an end to their ordeal, as we are doing for all French hostages throughout the world.

There is much going on in the world, ladies and gentlemen, from Lebanon to Tunisia and Côte d'Ivoire. But if you would allow me, I would like to mention that in these issues in the second part of my press conference. First of all, I would like to devote my attention, with your permission, to the G20 and G8. I'd like to make a few preliminary remarks, then I will answer your questions, and then we can move on to current affairs.

Over the last two months, I've spent an enormous amount of my time consulting heads of state and government, of course, but also international organizations, trade unions, representatives of corporations, economists, academics, and former heads of state and government of foreign countries. And from these consultations, I draw the following conclusion. If the G20 wishes to remain legitimate, it must remain effective. Our purpose is to open up real issues, matters that can no longer afford simply to gather dust, so that we can give our public opinion, which is becoming increasingly impatient, real concrete results. There will be several ministerial meetings.

For the G8, the ministers of foreign affairs will meet to prepare for the Deauville summit. The ministers of the interior will meet in order to discuss drug trafficking, and in particular, cocaine trafficking. The ministers of finance and government, governors of central banks will be mobilized for the G20, but there will be two other important ministerial meetings, that of labor ministers and that of ministers for agriculture. Seminars and meetings will also feed our collective thinking, and I will have the opportunity to join President Hu Jintao for a first seminar on reforming the international monetary system in China at the end of the month of March.

Now, the ambition of our presidency is a simple one. We live in a new world, we therefore need new ideas. This new world has seen huge changes in the balance of power after the Second World War, in other words, when the world set up or created the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, the GATT, the United States represented 45% of world GDP. In 75, when the G7 was set up, the United States and Western European states represented alone two-thirds of world GDP. Now, since the end of the 90s, we are witnessing a true upheaval of these changes in these balances. The weight of China in the world economy has more than doubled. It has overtaken Japan as the world's second economy.

And in 2050, China could be the world's first economy, number one economy, followed by the United States, India in third position, and Brazil in fourth position. So, we are witnessing a huge change in these balances. Now, we've taken account partly of these changes, which also goes towards explaining the establishment or the setting up of the G20, which represents 85% of world GDP. The second point I wish to make is that we are living in a truly interdependent world, which is increasingly volatile, where these imbalances are occurring faster and faster, but the gaps are becoming deeper and wider. We see this volatility all over the place.

In preparing for this press conference, I wanted to count up the number of banking crises that we've seen. It's quite staggering. In 40 years, there have been 125 banking crises, and we realize that over the last 20 years, there's been an acceleration in these banking crises. In other words, not only do these imbalances, are these imbalances not slowing down, they are speeding up. And if we also look at international capital flows since 1990, the world has seen 42 brutal crises in capital flows between 2008 and 2009. Capital flows in the space of a few days towards Asian countries were halved. Now, how can countries possibly handle such an instability?

It is quite simply impossible on exchange rate markets. Again, the figures make one giddy. The volume of transactions has now topped $4 trillion per day. I know that for most of us these figures are meaningless, but these are facts, and we have to take them on board. $3 trillion billion, $4 trillion per day on exchange rate markets. That spells a 20% increase since 2007, and that follows a 72% increase between 2004 and 2007. So, what worries me, I mean, it's very banal to say that the world is unstable, but what is not so banal is to show with figures that the acceleration is quite staggering. So, the situation is getting more and more serious.

This volatility on exchange rate markets, the banking scene, you will find equally when it comes to energy commodities. In 2008, the price of oil, six months, shot down from $140 for a barrel of Brent to 40. In other words, it was divided by three in the space of six months. Now, I do not believe that our energy consumption, the needs, our needs, our energy needs were divided by three over the same period of time. Look at agricultural and food commodities.

Prices over the past few years have increased three-fold as the markets have become more speculative on the subject, and we shouldn't forget that we're going to have to increase our production of agricultural produce by 70% between now and 2050 in order to feed the nine million, billion men and women who will be living on our planet. Our needs are going to have to increase by 70% between now and 2050, and that is the reason why France has said very firmly that this is not the time to dismantle the common agricultural policy in Europe. Prices have started increasing again.

At the end of December, the price of commodities, food commodities, as published by the FAO, overshot the peak already achieved in 2008. The new 2008 was not simply a date I've chosen at random because it was a year in which we saw food riots.

Now, the circumstances in which we live, the chaos, monetary chaos in which we are living right now,

has seen huge and unprecedented imbalances in balance of payments, which has almost doubled since the beginning of the century. Now, it's important that we discuss these issues with our partners because if we don't agree on this diagnosis, then it's very unlikely that we'll be able to find solutions together. The third characteristic, the major challenges we face, climate change, and development challenges, which will require global solutions, I've said time and again that we have promised, that we have pledged $100 billion per annum to the developing world as of 2020. This is a pledge that we have made. We made it in Copenhagen.

How can we keep this promise, whereas our countries are facing unprecedented budgetary deficits without raising the issue of innovative financing mechanisms? This issue of innovative financing is for France a crucial issue. It is of the essence. Now, the new G8 is going to also have to open up discussion at a political level, and I was very happy in my recent discussions with President Obama that we agreed that at the G8 we should discuss very informally the matter of Internet. The idea is not to bridle the development of Internet. It is undoubtedly a major progress for our fellow citizens.

It gives one and all access to universal knowledge and there is no question of in any way bridling this positive development, but there are responsibilities that come with this. The G8 represents eight very modern economies where Internet is very developed, and so it seems to be the right place to talk about it. And just before the Deauville Summit, we will be organizing a seminar with some of the major operators of the digital economy, and I think that we need to pool our knowledge, our skills. We need to listen to what major Internet operators have to say on the subject.

I am sure that they are extremely responsible and they shoulder their responsibilities, and we will listen to what they have to say on the subject so that we can move forward in a civilized manner. Now, these are some of the challenges we face. Of course, a lot has already been achieved. One of the first things that we are going to do is to make sure that what has been decided at the five previous G20 summits will be properly implemented. Over the past two years, a lot has been done in matters of financial regulation, although the public opinion doesn't always understand this. There are new rules on bank capitalization. We have regulated hedge funds, which was completely new.

There have been bank levies and taxes in order to avoid systemic risk. There has been a capping of bonuses, which is now something that everyone agrees on. I've heard that Morgan Stanley has agreed that 70% of bonuses will be paid out over several years, which is a bit more than what we'd asked for. Tax havens, which was a taboo for so many years. Since 2009, there have been 600 conventions on fiscal and tax transparency, and 13 countries have agreed to lift banking secrecy and confidentiality. So this is going to enable us to take some major decisions at the Cannes Summit. Development will be one of our major priorities in the G20.

We will focus primarily on infrastructures, and at the Cannes Summit we will adopt a list of specific concrete projects, which will immediately be implemented. And the high-level panel, which we have chosen to identify them, will be chaired by Mr. Thitian Thiam, President of the Prudential, the World Prudential Insurance Group, and former Ivorian Minister for Planning and Development. And thank you to him for having accepted this responsibility. Now, I personally am in favor of some sort of tax or levy on financial transactions. I consider that this is a moral issue in light of the financial crisis that we have just experienced.

It is a useful tax vis-à-vis speculation, and I can explain why I say this if you have questions on the subject, and I also feel that it's going to be effective in helping us find new resources to fund development. Now, I know full well that this tax has a lot of adversaries, and people who disagree fiercely with this idea. We are going to work with Prime Minister Melas from Ethiopia, who has already produced a very good report, and I will entrust a mission to someone from civilian civil society to work on the subject and how to enlist the private sector as well as the public sector.

And of course, the G20 cannot alone find all the answers to the matter of innovative financing, and we are prepared. We are open to discussions even though we feel very strongly about this tax and financial transactions. But again, you can ask me questions on the issue. When it comes to jobs, employment, and social issues, social partners will be fully associated in the work of the G20, and we are going to be convening a social summit. I mean, it's logical. We can't simply invite heads of companies and corporations and not representatives of trade unions. France wants us to think of how we can ensure universal social protection. We are not talking about a single unique social model.

That would make no sense, but the basis for social protection. And we cannot accept that the eight conventions of the ILO on fundamental labor rights should not be ratified by all the members of the G20, most of whom are also members of the ILO. I mean, if you adopt and you are a member of an organization and adopt these standards, then you have to implement them and ratify them. So instability, volatility of commodity prices, the whole of the year 2010 has born the hallmark of our discussions on currencies. Some have even gone so far as to talk about currency war and the instability of the international monetary system is something that we have seen since 1971.

There has been no true stability since 1971. I've read a lot of things on the subject, but I would like to make a certain number of points. First of all, France is not calling for a return to a fixed exchange rate system. I mean, there would be a complete contradiction in wanting that, whereas by the same token, we are criticizing the volatility of the euro, which does not correspond to an economic reality. So we need to be realistic. France does not wish in any way to challenge the role of the dollar. The dollar plays a very important role. It is a very and must continue to be a strong currency, as so often stated by President Obama. Nor is France favorable to capital controls.

Now, that is the basis. Having said that, having said that, having denied those three rumors, is there a single person anywhere in the world who can say that the present international monetary system is working smoothly and that there is no problem? Of course not. Now, we don't want to address these issues from an ideological point of view, but from a pragmatic point of view. Our ambition is to have convergence with our partners on concrete proposals. Our position is simple. It basically can be summed up as follows. The emergence of new economic powers will necessarily lead to the emergence of new international currencies. There are no two ways about this.

And the transition which is afoot is a factor of instability. Therefore, we have to accompany it and we have to strengthen the role of the IMF. And we have to get everyone to agree on the indicators whereby we can analyze these ongoing imbalances before we can even discuss these imbalances. France wants us all to agree on the indicators whereby we can gauge them and measure these imbalances. What's fascinating is that everyone is criticizing these imbalances, but there is no criteria. There is no rule whereby we can define what constitutes an imbalance or what constitutes a surplus. So that's our number one job, a very important piece of work.

And I very much hope that with our ministers of finance and governors of central banks, we will have a list of these criterias as of February. Then each state will have to present what it intends to do economically speaking and structurally speaking in order to reduce these gaps and imbalances. Then we have to face a very difficult question. How can we reduce the need for building up reserves? When countries see their capitals, the flight of their capital, they try and counter this risk by building up their reserves. Saying to themselves that if there is a problem, at least they'll have reserves. But this accumulation of reserves is a costly strategy.

We have to make more headway in order to give new facilities within the IMF as the IMF has tried to do, but how can we take account of the systemic aspect of certain crises that affect an entire region and that require not so much a national or regional response but a global and multilateral response? How can we better regulate international capital flows? The multiplication of unilateral recent unilateral measures leads us to raise the question of multilateral rules in this area. The G20 could therefore discuss a code of conduct in respect of how to handle capital flows. I think we need to reform the IMF statutes that is desirable so that we have these common rules.

See, what I'm suggesting is first of all, we have a list of criteria in order to define these imbalances. We ask the IMF to analyze and implement these criteria and then we try and get everyone to stand by these criteria and apply them. Now, how can we ensure transition towards the internationalization of new currencies? You know, special drawing rights were created 42 years ago. Can we possibly agree to opening up special drawing rights to new currencies? I was delighted to see that this was a subject of conversation between President Hu Jintao and President Obama. In and of itself, that is a major step forward.

When France mentioned this a few months ago, there was a lot of shock and horror that we even raised the issue. Now, of course, we cannot sort out all these complex issues in the space of one presidency, but we need urgently to address these issues. Now, in terms of organization, I have asked Chancellor Merkel who agreed that Germany co-chair with Mexico, which will be in the presidency of the G20 in 2012, the working party in charge of an international monetary system, a new international monetary system. Now, volatility in commodity prices. If we don't do something about this, we will be facing price increases and hunger riots in the world's poorest countries.

Now, first of all, we want to regulate financial markets when it comes to certain commodities. For some of these, there are no basic rules that protect them from speculation. Now, there is work of foot in the United States and in Europe on the subject on common rules. How could we possibly justify the fact that we're trying to regulate financial markets, but we have no rules when it comes to derivative food commodity prices and markets? Secondly, we have to improve transparency on actual markets so that we can have forecasts. We have to know production prospects, perspectives, consumption trends and stocks. We are going to suggest that we have a common database on these subjects.

And how can we strengthen our food security? We have to know production of a code of good conduct in order to matter, to handle and prevent emergency situations from arising. It makes no sense that at difficult times people are forced to buy food products at the very highest prices, especially on those continents where people are literally starving. That is unacceptable. We need to develop agricultural supply and I want my European friends to listen to this. We need to develop our agricultural supply if we are to be able to feed the world. And ministers of agriculture have a huge responsibility within the G20.

Lastly, I want to see how to put at the service of the world's poorest countries the new financial instruments that will enable them to protect themselves against price increases or events affecting food production. And I have just entrusted this mission to Pierre Jacquet, who is chief economist of the French Development Agency. I'm sorry that I have been so long, but I'd like to say a last thing on world governments, which is an extremely broad issue. We have reformed the IMF, the World Bank. We've created the Financial Stability Council Board. We've talked about our determination to try and combat world imbalances, but there is still so much to do.

We need to rethink the role of the ILO and the fundamental standards that it represents. I have asked David Cameron, the British Prime Minister who has accepted, to work specifically on these issues. So this is really a collective, it may be a French presidency, but it's going to be a collective effort. Our agenda now has been agreed to, not necessarily the solutions that we have suggested, but at least the agenda. And we have progressed on our working methods and our agenda. Now we have to focus on the solutions. Now, ladies and gentlemen, if you have questions on the G8 and the G20, I'd be happy to answer them.

And then we will move on to other matters pertaining to current affairs and foreign policy. On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to express my best wishes to you for this year. Now, the G20 is all about good governance. Good governance has been not necessarily something we've seen in Tunisia and Algeria or in Egypt. Well, I'm sorry for butting in, says the President, but Egypt is not a member of the G20. Well, it attends the G20, says Madame Le Mareski, nonetheless. My question is as follows.

As you are in the presidency of the G20, how can you call for good governance when there are young people in the Maghreb region who are so lacking jobs, access to employment, and when we see the sort of things that we've seen in Tunisia recently? Well, Madame, thank you for your good wishes. You are the President of your Press Association from one President to another. I have the greatest empathy for you. But I said from the outset that we all were going to have this press conference focusing first of all on the G8 and the G20, and then on current affairs. I promise you I will come back to that matter in a minute. As to Egypt, it's a very weighty country.

It's a major country, a country which is a great friend of France. It has a strategic role in the Arab world. And we work hand in glove with Egypt and its president. But might I recall that the 20 member states of the G20 are what they are. But in addition to them, there are five guests, five attendees, one which is a permanent attendee, Spain. And then in the weeks to come, as soon as I have finished my round of consultations, I will announce what five additional guests the French presidency wishes to invite to attend the G20 summits.

François Vachy, TF1. Globalization is a subject of concern. It worries people.

These issues are very complex ones. Do you not feel that people will feel that they are a little remote from their day-to-day concerns? Well, Mr. Vachy, maybe I was not clear on what I was saying. But it's precisely because I deeply believe that the program, the agenda chosen by France for this G20 and G8 is of interest to world public opinion. You know, regulating commodity prices, I think, is something which affects people in their daily lives. Do you not believe that? I mean, ask farmers in central France if the cost of the grain they need to feed the herds is not something that affects them on a daily basis. Of course it is.

The fluctuations between the euro and the dollar over the past 10 years has been something in the order of 80%. Now, ask heads of corporations whether that is not part of their daily concerns for them who need to export. Innovative financing, Europe is 12 kilometers away from Africa with its 1 billion inhabitants and 2 billion 30 years' time. If Africa does not have access to energy and to major infrastructure, then the migratory flows from Africa is something which we will never be able to stop. Now, innovative financing, we promised 100 billion dollars per annum between now and, well, by 2020 to build infrastructure, to improve people's lives. Is that not part of people's daily lives?

Of course it is.

Of course it is difficult to connect what is international and what is of domestic concern.

But this planet of ours is a global village and these things affect all of us. France is not hiding behind imaginary frontiers. And one of the things that we are very happy about, the French presidency is very happy about is that the agenda that we had suggested, which six months ago was highly criticized and people were not happy about, is now not being challenged by anyone. And no one, none of the requests that were made in respect to this agenda has not been taken account of. So, yes, it's complex. It's difficult. It's going to be difficult to agree because many of the interests are contradictory and these subjects are, as I said, very complex. Good morning.

I would like to have more details about what results you want to achieve in terms of agriculture on stock transparency. Is this the sort of information that India and China would give you? Do you have their agreement to this? And do you have any means of preventing Russia putting an embargo on its exports when it feels that it's going to have shortages? Can you ensure that people will have access to agricultural produce where they need it? Well, just let's take wheat. World stocks are down by 10% as compared to last year. On maize, corn, stocks have dropped by 14% as compared to last year, which means for the latter commodity because this is a very important commodity, food commodity.

The stocks are the very lowest since 1974. To put it differently, we had stocks for 174 days worldwide. Now, this is down to 50 days. And we are in a system where speculation feeds shortages and shortages feed speculation. A few days ago on the cocoa market, a speculator bought up in one single move 15% of stocks. In other words, on these markets, anybody can buy up any quantity without even actually having to pay for it and sell it off at any moment in order to make a mint and has no obligation either to get delivery of the stocks board nor even having to put the total amount of money on the table.

As to the decision taken by Medvedev and in fact Ukraine as well because you mentioned the fact that there's been an embargo on exports to the Maghreb. I'm not in any way criticizing this. Don't forget that Russia had to face last summer huge fires. But this is a unilateral decision which we can perfectly well understand. We can understand why this was decided on. But this simply strengthens shortages, make shortages worse, strengthens the hands of speculators who can play around with available stocks. In fact, when this decision was taken, we had no idea of what world food stocks were. I mean, what is FAO doing? What is the World Food Programme doing?

I mean, what are they doing to try and gauge world food stocks? I'm not saying it's easy but I think it needs to be done. I was looking at the newspaper article this morning saying that France had not understood public opinion and world public opinion and that we wanted to fix and set commodity prices. Now, isn't there a halfway house between raging free marketeering and the fixing of prices? Is it too much to say that someone who is on the commodity market should not be allowed to speculate? And force, could we not have, for instance, a rule whereby someone who purchases, who buys up a certain quantity of food has to block the sum of money that corresponds to those stocks?

I mean, is it feasible, is it thinkable that you can block huge amounts of food on commodity markets without taking any kind of risk? Without going into the detail of what we have in mind and I know that Christine Lagarde and Bruno Le Maire watching my every move. We know that the derivative markets when it comes to commodity prices, commodities, food commodities are useful, are useful. It's a form of insurance. So I'm not saying that we have to do away with them. All I'm saying is that there have to be rules. You cannot have a market if there are no rules. The characteristic of any market is that it should be regulated, otherwise it isn't a market.

It is simply a free-for-all.

And I'm very glad that President Medvedev has agreed to chair the group, the working party on the subject. And then soon I will be going to Turkey to talk to our Turkish friends on this subject. When I was in India a few weeks ago I talked to the Indian Prime Minister on the subject and it seems to me that be it the Turkish, the American, the European, the Chinese or the Indian farmers have the same interest. They need to see where they're going. There needs to be some visibility. I remind you that this world of ours in a matter of a few decades is going to have to be able to produce 70% more in order to feed its inhabitants. Yes, it's going to be difficult. Yes, it's going to be tough.

But I note that six months ago when France was the very first to put this subject on the table, to moot it, there was a chorus of people who protested. You heard them as well as I did. And people said, why meddle? Everything is going very well. Well, since then things have come down. Alba Ventura from RTL, you talked about the important role of the IMF within the context of the IMF, within the context of the G20. Do you think the IMF could afford to lose a man such as Dominique Strauss-Cam were he to announce his candidacy, for instance, for a presidential election? Well, let us – why do we think about ideas as opposed to individuals?

I am French president and, of course, there will be other French presidents after me. France is in the presidency of the G20 and it will be succeeded by another country afterwards. The IMF and its role cannot be boiled down simply to the personality of its director general. So my belief is that we should exchange and enlarge, rather, possibly by a change in IMF statutes, the role of the IMF. It is striking to note that in a world where there are so many imbalances, there is no one single international organization that is in charge of following these imbalances, not a single one.

Furthermore, you have no doubt noted that the governing board of the IMF has 24 members.

And the membership of the G20 is 20 members and five guests. Could there not possibly be some correspondence between these two organizations which have virtually the same membership? And would the IMF not be playing its role more fully if it looked at banking crisis and financial volatility rather than criticizing very poor countries for having increased the salaries of the civil servants? That is the role of the IMF. And if the IMF doesn't do it, no one will.

As to the talents of the present IMF President, it was I who suggested that he be chosen for that role.

Agence Reuters, with respect to your wish to reform the international monetary system, what have been the responses or support that you've got from the heads of state of China and the United States and what conclusions have you reached as a result of your meetings with them? Well, of course, first of all, I'm very grateful to President Hu Jintao for having agreed that the very first seminar on the subject be convened in China. I mean, it's no mean feat and it was not easy to achieve. It's a very important step in the right direction. And I certainly would never dream of telling China what it needs to do.

China is a great nation and I would never be so bold as to make any kind of recommendation to it on its monetary policy. However, I would note that the inflation is beginning to emerge in this country as the very felicitous decision to boost domestic demand has led the Chinese government to reconsider the value of the Yuan. It will go at its own pace, but it's very interesting to know what's going on in China. Now, with respect to the dollar and the American president, I must tell you that I am very appreciative of the fact that I can talk to President Obama. He's a very open man and it's easy to talk to him.

He represents a great nation, of course, a nation that has its own interests to defend. It has its habits, but I do note that in the United States, anything that seems to challenge the dollar or the role of the dollar is not always well perceived. However, whether we like it or not, 62% of the world's exchange reserve, according to the IMF, is in dollars.

And 4% for special drawing rights.

Of course, there's no question. There's no question of in anyone undermining the role of the dollar. Most of the world's transactions take place in dollars. So we need to reassure American friends. The dollar will remain a major currency. But I say to our Anglo-Saxon friends from the press, a dominant currency or a dominant economy does not mean that it's the only currency or the only economy. I mean, it is not forbidden to have ideas on the subject. You remember where the crisis began and yet I did not point an accusing finger at the United States. What purpose would that have served? We, I think, should think about perhaps reshaping and reinventing a world international financial system.

Now, at the time of Bretton Woods, there was only one economy and that was the United States. And most of the Chinese reserves are in dollars. And it's not in the interest of our Chinese friends to see the dollar collapse. So above and beyond matters of principle, above and beyond the disagreements, there are a lot of common interests. And if the G8 doesn't talk about it, then who is going to talk about it? I should tell you that in 1975 when President Giscard d'Estaing came up with the idea of setting up the G7, you probably remember that that was immediately after a monetary currency crisis and it was primarily to discuss monetary and currency issues.

And the G7 which has now become the G8 is, I believe, not legitimate in discussing the matter because China is not present in the G8. And who can say that China has not become a monetary power? This President Clinton recognized this during his famous trip to China, first trip to China. So where is the best place to talk about monetary issues and currency issues? What is for certain show is that the French presidency has to bring about a convergence of ideas, of interests, issues that pertain to sovereignty, to national identity. These are very touchy issues, be it for China or the United States. And we have to take account of that.

But I remain convinced that once you start talking about it, once you put the issue on the table, then necessarily some solutions will be found even if it takes a long time. Jean-Jérôme Bertolussi, Canal+, you talked about innovative financing. You said that it was a crucial issue for you, that there was a lot of resistance. Could a levy on financial transactions be a French initiative or even a European one? In other words, could France take the lead? Well, it's a matter of credibility. I mean, we can't say that it's a crucial issue and not take initiatives on the subject.

You're quite right in saying that if we needed to, we would have to prove our credibility.

This is something I have discussed extensively with my Prime Minister. We are determined to take initiatives on innovative financing and levy or tax on financial transactions. Now, what are the difficulties? What are the problems? Well, if we want to be credible, we can't completely go it alone. We would not be credible or at least we would be more credible if a certain number of countries joined us in taking this initiative. And I have not despaired on the subject because countries like Germany, like Japan, have been quite open to the idea of a tax or levy on financial transactions. And there is a second subject, which is a technical subject.

And I'm sorry to go into too much detail here, but we want this tax on financial transactions to be primarily on regulated markets.

Otherwise, we will have no control over what is going on.

However, I do not agree with the argument whereby it is claimed that you cannot make a difference between a speculative transaction and a non-speculative transaction for the simple reason that speculation is simply a constant toing and froing, whereas a transaction, an economic transaction, a purchase on the market, if you like, is a one-off. Whereas speculation is I buy, I sell, I buy back, and I resell. So if we tax a financial transaction insofar as a speculator is involved in more transactions than legitimate purchaser or buyer, then necessarily speculation will be more heavily taxed. That is our mind frame.

So we feel the best form of innovative financing is a tax on financial transactions. The worst-case scenario would be that there would be no innovative financial transactions. But if we agree on taxing, I don't know, shipping containers or cigarettes, why not? We are even prepared to consider a basket of innovative financial mechanisms. The fact of the matter is that in Copenhagen, the rich world pledged by 2020 to give the world's poorest countries $100 billion per annum. And we've got to find the money and therefore we will continue to struggle for such a tax, such a levy, a means of finding this money. That's precisely what we did with bonuses with Germany and with Britain.

And even at that time, everyone was saying, oh la la, be careful, you will destroy the banking system in Europe. And what happened? And this is where my hope lies. There is such a thing as an international public opinion which is quite weighty. And if some show the lead, take the lead, it may be that it will put pressure on others to follow them.

Christian Schubert, Frankfurt Allgemeiner.

If I've understood rightly, on commodities, the European Commission is publishing a study saying that speculation does not contribute to an increase in commodity prices. What do you think of this? And on the same subject, who are your allies in this initiative of yours? Are you standing firm with Germany on this?

Well, the study according to which, or what you're referring to, I would recommend be published on April Fool's Day.

A study that says that speculation does not contribute to increasing commodity prices should come out on April Fool's Day. If there are a couple of people who agree with this, then I'd be very interested to hear on what they base their arguments. And if I'm mistaken, I'll be the first to recognize this in all due humility. But let's be serious here. The figures I've given you, I believe, will speak for themselves.

Now, who are our allies on this front? I think everyone is.

But by the same token, the difficulty is to reassure those countries that produce commodities and raw materials. And get them to understand that we're not trying to prevent them from increasing their surpluses and their reserves. But it is in their interest. It is in their major interest for there to be some regulation, some regulated movement as opposed to these frenzied ups and downs. The higher prices rise, the lower they will drop in the worst possible conditions. I mean, remember that a barrel of Brent, when it was at $140, I was one of the ones who said that it was not in the interest of oil producers to have too high oil prices.

Because this would encourage those countries that did not have fossil fuels to invest in alternative energies, which in the end would compete with fossil fuels. So it is in everyone's interest first to have some sort of regulation. I'm not saying there should be no increases and no price drops. But you know what, the day we're facing hunger riots, no one around the G20 table is going to be able to say that they're not interested in the subject. I can't imagine a single country would not be interested. Mr. President, could you say a bit more about these fundamental social rights? How could this be binding?

Is this credible insofar as we can't even achieve social integration within Europe and the European Union? Well, it's quite easy. I don't necessarily need to define it. The ILO adopted, has adopted eight fundamental standards. For instance, a ban on child labor, labor by prisoners, the equality of the sex, gender equality. There are eight such standards. We're not claiming that we need a unique, single, across-the-board social model. It would make no sense. But these fundamental standards, these fundamental norms, as I call them, I believe should be ratified by all the members of the G20 who are also members of the ILO. I mean, that's a question.

I mean, why are we members of the same organizations? Why within these organizations do we adopt and vote in favor of a certain number of standards? And then why, when we go back home, do we not translate into our national legislation and regulations the standards that we've adopted within these organizations? I mean, this is a simple question. And thanks to France, the ILO is now a permanent guest invited to G20 meetings now. Of course, the system I dream of which will, of course, not be adopted under this presidency where we would have the IMF in charge of ensuring financial monetary stability and how to redress imbalances.

We would have a World Environmental Organization in charge of implementing environmental standards of rules and regulations. We would have an agricultural organization which is not broken up into a multiplicity of different organizations. We would have a World Trade Organization and we would have a system which would settle disputes on the basis of liability because we have a world. What is the problem today? We have a world market. We don't have world regulations or world rules. We don't have a world system. The market has pre-existed the rules that should govern this market. There needs to be a catching up process. There needs to be, of course, freedom for one and all.

But countries must be able to compete on an equal footing with equal rights and equal obligations. That is how we will avoid protectionism. The day, I mean, this year is the tenth year of failure to achieve any kind of agreement on the subject of world trade rules. Please hand out the microphones.

I would like to come back to the issue of China and the United States.

Was the meeting between Hu Jintao and Obama not a sign that the G20 is no longer relevant? That we're really talking about a G2. The G20 is simply a forum where problems are raised but no solutions are found. That's just a question. Well, it's a very optimistic question. If I may say so, well, look, we'll meet at the end of the year and we'll see which of the two of us was right. But, you know, if we have to leave it up to a G2 to rule the world, we wouldn't reach very many decisions, would we? And France is very attached to multilateralism. And I have talked extensively with both presidents, Hu Jintao and Obama, and they know perfectly well.

And I've said to them that the G2 cannot rule the world. We are in a multilateral world where everyone's voice hasn't to be listened to. And I'd go even further. At all the seminars that I'm going to be convening, I will open discussions to countries that are not even members of the G20. In other words, I'm going even further. You might as well call for the destruction of the United Nations if I pursue your line of reasoning. Of course, these two countries have an important role to play, but they're not the only ones. Well, insofar as we're all entitled to speak, I see G8, G20, New World, New Ideas. You've said a lot of things as to the new ideas.

You've also listed many new ideas, many things. But according to you, Mr. President, what is the main idea, the most important idea? And why have you not said anything about disarmament? We know that military expenditure is huge, not simply in France. Military budgets are huge. And yes, there may be an economic and monetary wars raging. But perhaps you could solve some of these problems by reducing military budgets. Well, someone just asked me a question saying the G20s have no useful purpose. Now you're asking me to say that the G20 has to solve all problems. We may represent 85% of the world GDP, but there's no legitimacy in the G20 discussing the issue of disarmament.

I'm not saying that disarmament is not important. And I'm saying the military budgets are not important. We could talk about it extensively, but not at the G20. If you want to kill off the G20, then get it to adopt a position on matters that pertain to international organizations such as the UN or international conferences. That would kill off the G20 because it would have no legitimacy to do so. And we have to resist the temptation of becoming a kind of world forum which discusses just about everything. Yes, we are legitimate in discussing economic matters, development, currency, monetary issues, but not political issues of the ilk of that you've just raised.

And I would say that France has held back on a certain number of issues because the very legitimacy of the G20 from the point of view of all countries that are not represented in the G20 has been raised.

What is most important to me is that whatever decisions we take, we will take together. We have to get a convergence of views. There cannot be a majority and a minority. There cannot be sanctions. There have to be convictions. We are in a multilateral world and it's in everyone's interest that we forge ahead together. No one can afford to prevent a solution to problems without exposing themselves to very heavy criticism. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I do not wish to tie you out unless there's a last question on the G20.

Olivier Masrol from the FMTV, the French regularly show themselves to be very pessimistic as to the future and in respect of globalization.

They feel that it is a source of unemployment and impoverishment. And what could you say to them that would reassure them on these matters? Yes, of course it's a question that I've thought about and do think about but I can't answer you. We haven't even completed the first month of our presidency and you have addressed the concrete issues that will be and points that will be addressed in November in Cannes. So you see, my quandary, we will try and achieve as much as possible. And I think it's honest to say that already the French presidency has a source of satisfaction, has reason for satisfaction because all the issues that we have raised have been agreed to.

And it has been agreed that these are important issues. We will do our utmost to achieve concrete results but I cannot answer your question today. I can only do so in Cannes in November. I am well aware of the difficulties that lie ahead. We could perfectly well have chosen another strategy which basically would have been tantamount to saying, well, the G8 is simply going to go on doing what was decided in London and Washington. It was less risky but it would have been catastrophic for the rest of the world. So if we don't take these sorts of decisions, what is going to happen?

We're going, we'll be heading for the wall.

So these issues are of great importance to all. They are questions and we very much hope that as we move along on commodities, prices, on infrastructures, on the implementation of previous decisions, on monetary issues and on all the issues I've raised, I hope that we will have concrete results. But I have no doubt that in this room many of you will be very eager to draw your own conclusions. Now, ladies and gentlemen, if there is one thing that characterizes France's policy is its determination to speak with all the peoples of the world and to have links of friendship with them.

France calls for and has always called for the respect of the freedoms of people to determine their own destinies. Now, there are a number of issues which are of a special importance. Terrorism. France has been the target of terrorism. Terrorism despises human life. It murders innocent people. It kills those who have risked their lives in order to educate, heal, combat poverty and contribute to the economic development of the world's poorest regions. It affects families. It causes grief and this suffering is something that all Frenchmen and women have felt. And it is a terrible injustice, a terrible, terrible injustice.

And on behalf of France, of all my fellow citizens, whenever a French man or woman is assassinated by terrorism, France's determination to combat terrorism is greater and more strengthened. Fear, immense, giving up, cowardice in the history of the world have always led to disasters, especially when faced with barbarity. And these values which we hold dear and that are being so deeply challenged lead us to adopt a single unique position, to be firm and to be bold. Now, Cote d'Ivoire, we have very strong links with this people which is suffering. For France, things are clear vis-à-vis Cote d'Ivoire. Cote d'Ivoire has a single legitimate and legal government, a single one.

That is the one that the Ivorian people chose for itself, recognized by the United Nations

and all African organizations.

And I wish to pay tribute to the representative of the African Union present here.

Now, Lebanon.

Again, centuries of friendship link us to Lebanon.

We want to maintain the integrity of Lebanon and we are doing everything we can to ensure that Lebanon not be torn asunder once again by a new crisis.

Our hope, or rather, the Lebanese are entitled to the independence of their country.

That is our hope and we want to keep that hope alive for Lebanon and for its citizens. With all our commitment, it is up to the Lebanese to choose their government. And France will support the legitimate institutions in Lebanon.

Now in Tunisia, this is a sister people who have decided to take over their own destiny themselves.

When you are so close, when individual and collective destinies are so closely interlinked, it is not always easy to understand what is going on in other people's minds, gauge their frustrations or the anger. The emancipation of women, the efforts for education and training, economic dynamism. Behind all of this, the emergence of a middle class, there was a sense of despair, a suffering which I recognize we had not properly gauged. There was the despair of youth, often highly educated, who felt they had no future. There was a real sense of anger worn of a sense of injustice, a moral revolt which was being fed by quite unacceptable corruption.

And lastly, there was a legitimate aspiration to freedom which had been clamped down on for too long. This liberation could only have come from the Tunisian people themselves. And I want to say to the Tunisian people that the people of France stands with it and by it in its march towards democracy and freedom. It is with friendship and respect that France stands by the side of the Tunisian people. There is a new era opening up in the relations between Tunisia and France. based on relations of trust and common values of democracy and liberty.

And it is with this in mind that I've asked the Prime Minister to prepare a certain number of measures which could be proposed to the Tunisian authorities given the very exceptional circumstances that they are having to face. In particular, I refer to economic difficulties. Now, if, of course, this is in keeping with the wishes of the Tunisian government, these measures perhaps could be implemented as speedily as possible and as early as the next council of ministers or cabinet meetings. And furthermore, France is trying to track down systematically the monies and assets that have been, of which the Tunisian people have been despoiled.

France will also work with its European partners to relaunch the procedure and to accelerate the procedure whereby Tunisia will have a special status. This is the best way we can help Tunisia. I want Tunisia also and the Tunisian people to play its rightful part in the union for the Mediterranean. Tunisia has to stop being or rather the Mediterranean has to become a region of peace, of culture, of cooperation and no longer of confrontation. And we call or we appeal to all the peoples of Europe and of the Mediterranean bases to give new impetus to this union for the Mediterranean. It is in the interest of one and all. Mr.

President, I would like to raise a question on Tunisia since you've just mentioned it. A few days before the flight of President Ben Ali, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs offered to help the Tunisian police. I know that the idea was not to have French police shooting down Tunisian demonstrators, but I think this was a clear expression of support for the Ben Ali regime. And it's surprising to see that our Minister of Foreign Affairs is still occupying her present position. And furthermore, are you intend is France going to continue supporting other regimes comparable to that of the Ben Ali regime? Well, I'm going to try and answer you as completely as possible.

Now, first of all, with respect to countries that were former French colonies or protectorates or… D'Ivoire was France. Algeria was France. Whatever your beliefs, your individual beliefs, you will surely understand that the President of the French Republic, who is in charge of France's interests, has to take account of the weight of history in how he gauges developments in each of these countries. I ask you to be objective in your thinking about this. You cannot talk about a country with the same freedom when 50, 60, 70 years ago or maybe less, fewer years ago, that country was suffering under the yoke of French colonization.

Many of these wounds have not healed.

Do you get me? It's very important to bear that in mind. The colonial power, even if it goes back or ended a few decades ago, is not the country to take a stand or to make any pronouncement about the domestic affairs of a former colony. And this applies to all of us. And therefore, we have a duty to show reserve with respect to events occurring in countries that were former French colonies and that they are no longer French colonies. I do not want France to be considered to be a country that has colonial reflexes.

And I think that there is a huge contradiction in the one hand upholding the principle of individual sovereignty and the right of peoples to choose their own destiny and this obsession to have France step in or make pronouncements on what goes on in those countries. And I really feel very strongly that we have to take a step back and show tremendous caution, especially for Algeria, but not only for Algeria. And I note that those very self-same people who criticized me as they criticized my predecessors. But, okay, I'm the present president and that's why I was being criticized for not having got more involved in what went on in Tunisia.

Were the very same people who criticized me for having rushed in, as they said, to Cote d'Ivoire, whereas the United Nations were there to ensure that there were free and fair elections and they announced and guaranteed and upheld the result. So, if France had not had the history it has or had with the countries of the Maghreb, then maybe yes. I might have spoken more freely. Maybe I was wrong, but I know why I did what I did. Because, you know, when a country feels that there is a meddling in its domestic affairs, it tends to hunker down and resent what it considers to be meddling by foreigners.

Now, how can it be said that France did not help Tunisia,

whereas we were supportive of virtually all the opposition parties and movements in Tunisia? We welcomed them with open arms here in France. And, in fact, the Tunisian authorities were not happy about that at all. They heavily criticized us for this. Whenever I or when my minister went to Tunisia, said that we were responsible for any vile plot that was being put together by the Tunisian opposition because they were based in France and they even said that we were protecting them. We did afford them some protection. Now, I'm not talking about the Islamists and the extremists who were in London and most of them I wouldn't have accepted in France. So, the opposition is here and has been here.

And this has been the subject of a lot of controversy. Third point, we are watching with concern what is going on in a certain number of countries, but we do not want to leave the sense that we are meddling in any way and that we are trying to promote a government which is perhaps in the interest of France, but not chosen by that country's own people. And I say be careful there. Fourthly, all the illegitimate authorities of Tunisia, all that they ask of us we will do. But need I remind you that General de Gaulle had relations with President Bourguiba and likewise the previous French presidents had relations with the existing regime in Tunisia and they were right to do so.

I mean, what do you want? To cut off all relations with them and have no discussions?

And that we only discuss and have relations with countries we have no criticism of

and we ought to be careful about that because France as a hectoring and lecturing country is not something we wish to be perceived as. We have been criticized for that in the past and you were probably right in doing so. And lastly, with respect to what Madame Aliot-Marie said, you answered your own, you gave the answer in your own question by saying exactly what I will say. Madame Aliot-Marie was not in any way suggesting that French police would shoot at Tunisian demonstrators, but to try and contain and avoid violence. This was done in all transparency and openness and for the right reasons. So I don't want to get involved in this controversy.

But just say, yes, we in France probably underestimated the aspirations of the Tunisian people to freedom, but we wish to maintain very close ties with Tunisia. And the fact that we want to ensure within the European Union that Tunisia is given special status is a sign of that. Of course, things aren't simple and I'm not saying that they are simple. I see that many of you apparently knew exactly what was going to happen. Perhaps you should have told us, but we would have benefited from your wisdom.

But, you know, the I told you so after the events generally goes hand in hand with total silence before the events.

A week ago you were in Lancel for the funeral of the two young youths who had been killed in Africa.

Do you regret the decision you took to send in troops to try and get them released? Well, first of all, these two young people were not killed. They were murdered in a cowardly fashion. I weigh my words.

You asked me whether I had doubts about having sent troops in just for their release.

Of course, as I stood before the coffins, I had a lot of questions running through my mind. One of them was about to get married to an Ivorian, in fact, Amalian, rather. The other was going to be his best man at his wedding. They barely arrived. They were taken hostage and they were killed. What were we going to do? They were French. They were 25.

For me, it was no doubt when, together with the return of one of our soldiers killed, it has been a moment of great doubt.

Yes. Should we have done that? Should we have done what we did? And, of course, I cannot be satisfied with the outcome insofar as these two young men were killed. But after having thought about it at length, after having talked about it with the Minister of Defence, with my Prime Minister, I think it was the only decision that I could have taken. I don't say so lightly. Why? Because imagine this press conference now here, the same president, the same journalists, in the same room. few knew that the authorities of Niger had asked us to try and stop and block a terrorist convoy with two of our fellow Frenchmen taken hostage as part of that convoy.

And had I refused, what sort of questions would you be asking of me today? What would you be saying right now? There should not be someone here who could believe that France in some way has turned a blind and cowardly eye on terrorism. Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence have given very clear explanations as to what happened. And we were not the first to shoot when the helicopters arrived. They were massively shot up by the terrorists and that's when the fighting began. Let's be clear. France is prepared to discuss when others are prepared to discuss. When there is a common determination to discuss, we do so. And that's how we got Mr.

Kamat who had been taken hostage in Mali back home. Don't imagine I've forgotten Mr. Germano and the fact that he was a 70-year-old or in his 70s doesn't make my conscience any lighter. It's simply that the terrorist would determine not to discuss. So France's position is that there is only one position we can adopt vis-à-vis terrorism and that's to remain firm. Otherwise, it is our collective security that is threatened. If we start becoming weak, we will never be weak enough. If we start bowing down, it will never be low enough. If we start playing the game of these people, we will never play it enough. If we start apologizing, no, we will be spared no humiliation. That is what I believe.

Which does not mean that I am happy with what occurred nor does it mean that I don't have questions and doubts. Of course I do. But on the fundamentals, every time a democracy has weakened its guard and has shown weakness, it has paid a very heavy price. There have been far more killed, far more dead. The refusal to look, to face the facts is something you pay a heavy price for. Weakness as a position, as a political argument is something which you are never forgiven. And as Madame Alliomarie said, I will say to my fellow Frenchmen and women, please do not go to that part of the world unless you absolutely have to, unless there is no choice.

Mr. President, Michael D'Armond, Italy.

You just talked about the reserve that France has to show in certain circumstances, but how do you reconcile this with the influence that France, you wish France to have? And we see that there has been a certain political impotence of the Union for the Mediterranean which you created. Well, I would say that the more reserved we are on expressing our views on subjects which we are not asked to express our views on, then the greater will be our influence. The more we meddle, the less influence we will have. So, yes, I accept that there is a degree of contradiction between universal principles that France defends

and the principle of sovereignty, country's sovereignty that France equally defends.

Now, in the case of Tunisia, yes, I've said we probably underestimated the situation. However, to engage in an exercise whereby we would explain to the Syrians, the Egyptians, the Algerians, the Jordanians or the Moroccans what they have to do and what they have to think and how they have to do it. Well, I, as President of the Republic, would be very cautious. These countries are independent and they are sovereign. As to the Union for the Mediterranean, I believe deeply in it and in its role. But you know perfectly well why it has ground to hold or at least why there has been a blockage. And France will take initiatives in order to get things moving again.

And when you see the importance that I attach to trying to achieve peace in the Middle East, the need for the Israelis and the Syrians to discuss peace, how can we persuade the Syrians if we don't? I mean, how can we bring them on board if we could talk to them? How can we open or talk to bring Egypt on board unless we talk to them? How can we open up the situation in the Middle East if we don't talk to them and get them to move towards a parliamentary democracy such as ours? And that is my belief. That is what French diplomacy is striving to achieve. But you have to be able to talk to people.

France 3, Christian Malar, Islamic fundamentalism is gaining ground all over the world and even in the Maghreb.

Are you not afraid that the Islamists who often speak for those who are trying to improve their lot

and who are trying to overcome hunger and abject poverty? Are you not afraid that they might not become quite influential in Tunisia? Well, it is up to this young Tunisian democracy to make its choices. But it is obvious that we also have to keep a watchful eye on what goes on. I have pleaded the cause of freedom of belief for Christians in certain Muslim countries and the local press criticized me heavily for what they consider to be meddling. And yet, if I had to say it again, I would. The risk of Islamic fundamentalism and integrism exists, but in no way can that justify corruption or refusal to open up to democracy, especially as such positions simply fuel fundamentalism.

So we have to find and strike the right balance and that, once again, is very difficult. Mr. President, I have a question on Lebanon. In what you said earlier on, you talked about your interest in the maintaining stability in Lebanon and you mooted the idea a few days ago of some kind of contact group, which apparently hasn't yet been set up. We all know that Mr. Hariri has had to step down. What can you do now to help Lebanon, whereas consultations to appoint a new head of government has just begun? Well, today is a crucial day because today President Sleiman and President Nabi Beri are going to be counting the votes in Parliament.

France has become closer to Syria because France considers that it is essential that Syria be involved in the discussions aimed at solving and settling a certain number of crises.

Syria is Lebanon.

Syria is Lebanon's neighbor. We all know that. But France is using this friendship with Syria to say to Syria that Lebanon is independent and must remain so and that the International Criminal Court, the Special Tribunal, must see its work through to the end. Now, what will come out of the consultations? Who knows? Who will be the Prime Minister of Lebanon? It's not up to France to decide that even though we have met with all the main protagonists on the Lebanese political scene. I have not given up on the contact group. I suggested it after having met the King of Saudi Arabia, New York, who told me that he did not want to be the go-between between Syria and Lebanon.

So we're not the only ones in this contact group. The Saudi Arabia as well, Qatar, Syria, Egypt, the United States. And, of course, the Lebanese Presidents. I say the Lebanese Presidents. There's the President of the Parliament, the President of the Government, and the President of the Republic. Now, of course, by virtue of its history, France has to support and be at Lebanon's side. And also, we have troops under UN mandate in Lebanon, French troops. And the crisis is playing into the hands of the extremists because, basically, it detracts attention from issues such as what Iran is doing in respect of trying to access nuclear weapons.

And for how long are we going to accept that the Palestinians and the Israelis are not talking? Everybody knows what it would take to build peace. Everybody knows the requirements for making peace. And all comes from, it stems from this gridlock. So Europe is necessarily going to have to take initiatives in order to get us out of this gridlock, which is unacceptable. I'm sorry to have to say this, but Lebanon is the collateral victim of this block. And we refuse Lebanon to be used as leverage by foreign interests. We know that. So the time has come to relaunch negotiations.

And France, in particular, will suggest the convening of a donor conference for the future Palestinian state on one condition. And that is that there should be a political facet to this. Europe can no longer simply be asked to pay and be kept out of the political discussions. Now, if at least there were some headway being made, we could possibly accept that, but there's no headway being made. And what's going on in Lebanon? We've managed to reestablish over the last two and a half years some degree of concord and peace. Then there's a gridlock on discussions. Everybody knows that there will be a Palestinian state and everybody knows what it will look like.

And everybody knows that Israel's true security and safety will be guaranteed when the day when there is a viable modern democratic Palestinian state. Everybody knows that. And that's why I felt that to set as a precondition discussions on settlements was a mistake because some of the settlements will not be a problem because they will remain on what will be Israeli territory, whereas others will not. And everybody knows this. I mean, over the decades, we've had plenty of time to figure this one out. Now, the result is that there is a crisis between the Israelis and the Palestinians who can't seem to be able to talk. And collateral damage is the situation in Lebanon.

Perhaps one last question. Associated Press, James Keaton.

There was information yesterday about the hostages taken in Mali who apparently are no longer in Mali.

Do you have information on this? And then there was also a statement by Ben Laden.

How seriously do you take what he said in his statement?

Well, I have no intention of discussing, let alone responding to this gentleman in any which way. Now, as to the hostages, we believe that they are alive, that we know that, we're sure of that. We are deeply concerned, very worried. And there isn't a day that passes without us working on this issue. Now, with respect to the hostages in Afghanistan, they are alive. And the less I speak about it, the better for them and for all. Of course, there are the families, there are the close ones, there are the support groups. I understand that they cannot remain cool-headed about it. And they say things, we cannot afford to do that. We will say what we have to say when we brought them back home.

That is our objective. The rest are simply comments that will, which have nothing to do with the facts. And I cannot speak on the subject because there are lives at stake. And I have to show discretion. One very last question. Nathalie Nougaret, Le Monde, Mr. President, you tried to explain your policy vis-à-vis Tunisia by saying that you had a duty to remain reserved as a former colonial power. But 70 people were killed by the Tunisian police trying to repress the demonstrations on the subject. Can one imagine that a declaration by France on the subject would have been considered to be a post-colonial reflex? How do you explain not having said anything on the subject? Well, that's not true.

The Elysée published two communiques, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister, both of them spoke and criticized what had happened. Again, I don't want to get involved in a controversy on the subject with you. You were entitled to think what you believe. There are many more killed in Côte d'Ivoire. And there again, we were very critical. I told you what I think of the situation in Tunisia. But to say that we said nothing about the victims and those who were killed, I think is an exaggeration. It's an overstatement. But anyway, it's the freedom of the press to say what it says and I'm not challenging that.

Likewise, you cannot challenge what I said when I said that we welcomed all Tunisian opposition parties with open arms, but I'm not going to go back to what I've already said about Tunisia. But yes, perhaps what is important is to repeat our feelings, longstanding feelings for the Tunisian people. We consider them to be a sister people with longstanding ties. One last question. No, really, it's always you who ask the question. It's always you. You cannot. You're never denied the right to ask a question.

Mr. President.

Okay, both of you. Just one. Be gallant. Give the floor to the lady. Were the question to arise, would France be prepared to welcome President Bouteflika in France, give him safe haven? On an official visit, you mean? Now, can you imagine if I answered your question what the reaction could be in a country, a major country like Algeria? Yes, yes, you're entitled to raise these questions. But the difference between you and me is that I have responsibilities. I am responsible for what I say and the impact it has. That is the big difference. Mr. Aziza, you said earlier on, I quote, that cowardice and giving up have always led to disasters in the history of the world.

Right now, on the Iranian nuclear issue, there is a potential risk for a disaster. How do you think we can avoid that? Through discussion or military action? Well, I believe that sanctions are beginning to bite. That's my personal belief. And that they have to be further toughened up. But France, and this is our policy, it's extreme, has grave reservations about the idea of a military intervention. I've said it for this case and I say it equally when it comes to Cote d'Ivoire. There are sanctions, there is diplomacy, there are political discussions and that's how you get things shifting. And in today's world, nobody, nobody can remain isolated against the international community.

A lot is said about the downside of globalization and it's true. But one thing that is very positive about globalization is that we have a real world jurisdiction. Any dictator knows that one day they will be tracked down and they will have to answer for their deeds. There is no place that is a safe haven for a dictator where they can go underground. That is one of the great benefits of globalization, which is why I believe in the impact of sanctions, diplomacy and discussions. And I wish you the best of New Year's.