A Conversation with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot

Our session today, as you all know, comes in the midst of the U.N. General Assembly's

High

Level Week in New York,

where

leaders are here discussing a myriad of issues that are facing the global

collective,

particularly with the U.N. marking its 80th anniversary. This moment in particular, it spotlights both the present and the future of our multilateral institutions,

as

well as the ongoing shifts in the global order.

And

in addition to what's happening on the international stage, as many of you will follow,

in

France, as they lean towards coalition building around issues such as Israel and Palestine

or

the war in Ukraine, domestically, they're also in transition with a new prime minister

and

a looming budget crisis. So with all of these themes in the mix, today

we're

going to explore issues of democratic resilience, the future of multilateralism, and several other themes with our discussion.

I

will now turn it over to the minister

to

give some opening remarks, and then after that we'll be in a brief conversation before I open it up to questions from the audience. So thank you, Mr. Minister.

Thank

you very much for your kind words. And indeed,

it

is good to be back to Cambridge,

where

I left a number of memories, colleagues, and friends.

I

grew up in central France,

on

a land ringed by old mountains and dormant volcanoes.

I

grew up

with

the legend of a hero,

a

hero

who

was also born and raised on this land,

a

hero of the two worlds,

as

we call him,

for

France

and

for the United States of America.

So

let me tell you his story

as

an introduction.

He

was raised by his mother and aunts on this land.

And

when he turned 19,

he

heard of bold men

fighting

for freedom and democracy on the other side of the Atlantic.

He

defied his boss at the time.

He

stood shoulder to shoulder with the American patriots.

He

fought amongst them.

He

became friends with George Washington.

He

bonded with Thomas Jefferson,

who

was at the time

writing

the Declaration of Independence. Remember

those

words,

we

hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Our

young man

took

these powerful words back to France.

And

a few years later, just three days before the storming of the Bastille, he wrote the first draft of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, that said,

men

are born and remain free and equal in rights.

The

aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of men.

These

rights are liberty, property, safety, and resistance to oppression. Clearly,

you

hear the influence of Thomas Jefferson.

And

this is the story,

by

now you have guessed it,

of

Lafayette.

This

was 250 years ago.

In

fact, today, September 25th, we celebrate the 249th anniversary of Congress's decision to mandate Benjamin Franklin to negotiate a treaty with France to consolidate American independence.

So

the powerful words of Jefferson and Lafayette

have

survived the test of time.

So

much so,

that

a century and a half later,

the

same story happened, but the other way around.

On

the full moon night of June 6, 1944, thousands of young American men boarded ships heading to the shores of Normandy, where many of them would spill their blood

to

liberate France, my country,

from

oppression

for

the very same reason

why

young Lafayette had crossed the Atlantic in the first place.

So

think for a minute.

Ask

yourself,

why

did these young men cross the Atlantic and risk everything they got?

Why

did they do it?

What

does it take?

What does it take? It

takes a simple idea. An idea that France and the United States have championed

for

over two centuries.

An

idea that has brought so much to the world

and

that holds in one single world,

democracy.

Democracy as the vision of a society in which enlightened citizens decide for themselves. Democracy as a fragile but incredibly powerful institutional framework resting on three pillars.

First

pillar,

fundamental

rights. Some rights are sacred. You cannot

touch

them. Second pillar, one man, one vote. Law is made by the people, for the people. Third pillar, the rule of law. Everyone has equal rights. No one is above the law.

If

all three principles hold,

democracy

will hold.

Should

one be shaken,

then

democracy will falter.

But

when democracy holds, it is indeed the most conducive institutional framework for prosperity, welfare and peace.

This

is not an opinion.

This

is a statement grounded in scientific research.

What

does research tell us about democracy?

The

world's most cited economist, Harvard professor André Schleifer,

has

assembled a broad body of evidence

that

shows that legal tradition is a key driver of development.

He

and his co-authors have shown that the rule of law yields stronger investor protections, deeper and broader capital markets and ultimately higher economic growth.

The

intuition is simple.

When

private property is protected, when intellectual property is protected, entrepreneurs, innovators are incentivized to create value

and

push the knowledge frontier.

I

just quoted a Harvard economist.

I

will avoid a diplomatic incident

and

turn to an MIT economist.

Who

has had so much influence on my own research when I was a professor there.

The

Nobel laureate, Daron Acemoglu.

Daron

and co-authors have shown that democracy does cause growth.

This

is not an opinion.

This

is a statement grounded in scientific research. Democratization raises GDP per capita by about 20% in the long run, driven by democracy's greater investments in capital,

education

and health.

In

further groundbreaking work, Daron has also found that inclusive institutions, those that ensure broad participation and spread the dividends of growth, lie at the core of why some countries grow rich

when

some others

remain

poor.

Some

of you will say that GDP is not a sufficient statistic for welfare. And this is a fair point.

So

let's look beyond GDP.

Research

published in The Lancet

has

shown that democracy has a positive causal effect on life expectancy.

Controlling

for other factors, adult life expectancy increases by

approximately

3% over 10 years after a country transitions to democracy. Consistent with this

is

the negative correlation between democracy and infant mortality. Consistent with this is the positive correlation between democracy and subjective well-being documented in many, many, many papers.

So

democracy is conducive to prosperity and to welfare.

But

democracy is also, and this is perhaps a little bit less intuitive, to peace.

No

need to graduate from Harvard Kennedy School to spot the pattern.

Over

the past 80 years, no mature democracy has gone to war with another.

And

most importantly, democracy provided the blueprint for the international order that raised from the ashes of World War II. Read the United Nations Charter signed in San Francisco 80 years ago.

You

will hear the echoes of Lafayette and Jefferson.

You

will recognize the three pillars of democracy translated to the international level and supporting a democracy of nations. Pillar number one, the fundamental rights. Territorial integrity,

you

don't touch my border, I don't touch yours,

and

self-determination of

people. Pillar

number two,

one

nation, one vote, with each country having the same share of power at the General Assembly.

Third

pillar, the rule of law,

with

the same rules

applying

to all nations.

The

number one purpose of the United Nations

was

to maintain international peace and security.

Has

it worked?

Yes,

it has.

The

guiding principle of territorial integrity has made aggression costly

for

any state tempted to invade their neighbor.

Not

every conflict has been averted,

by

far.

But

the mediating roles of the General Assembly and the Security Council have stopped many crises, many tensions from sliding into full-blown wars.

Further,

research has shown that the UN peacekeeping missions and other peace-building activities reduce violence,

improve

human rights, and create more stable post-conflict environments.

They

help prevent future conflicts and they do so cost-effectively and strengthen global security. Prosperity, welfare,

peace,

democracy has brought so much to our civilization. And France and the US have contributed to all

this.

Yet, wherever I look,

fundamental

rights are challenged.

The

rule of law is contested.

Wherever

I look,

I

see democracy under fire.

And

fire is set,

first

and foremost, by enemies of democracy from the outside. Authoritarian regimes that fear democracies like vampires fear sunlight.

They

know that democracy is contagious.

They

fear it like a deadly virus. Nothing worries them more than it spreading to them.

They

will do whatever it takes

to

stop it,

whether

it's brute force, blackmail, disinformation, election manipulation.

When

democracy gets too close to their border,

they

will do anything to prevent this

from

happening.

And

they have a very, very simple playbook.

The

script is always the same.

No

need to study political science at Harvard to figure it out. Everything

lies

in the scenario

of

Star Wars.

When

Darth Sidious, the dark lord of the Thys, turns the galaxy from democracy to dictatorship in four easy and replicable steps,

he

sets the standard.

And

he does this for easy steps and a red lightsaber, of

course.

But step one is what? Identify

a

proxy.

Disguise

yourself

as

a senator

from

within. Step two,

foster

a fake internal separatist threat.

Step

three, get rid of the ultimate counter power,

the

Jedi Order.

And

step four, declare in the Senate

the

end of the Republic and the advance of the Empire

for

the sake

of

security. Fortunately, the return of the Jedi puts an end to all of this, restores balance to the force.

But

this scenario is not one of fiction. Look at Vladimir Putin.

The

true reason for his colonial wars, Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014,

is

simple, democracy.

The

sovereign and legitimate choice of Georgians and Ukrainians

to

turn toward Europe, threaten democratic contagion to the Russian sphere of influence.

So

he staged fake separatist fronts

to

justify breaking international law.

He

then launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine.

He

tried to manipulate elections in Germany, Romania, in Moldova.

And

now he tries to intimidate supporters of Ukraine by tampering with their borders and violating their airspace.

Has

he succeeded? No.

Will

he succeed? Certainly not.

Putin

is failing to make progress on the ground, just like he is failing to make progress in the spirits.

Why? Well,

because democracy is an idea

and

an idea cannot be bombed.

It

cannot be destroyed with Shahhead drones.

And

beyond Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is targeting the European Union itself

with

sabotage, cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns, assassination attempts. Why?

Because

the EU is a genuine democratic project.

Perhaps

the most democratic project of all times.

He

hates it,

he

hates what it represents, and he is not alone.

And

by the way,

some

dare say that freedom of speech

is

bounded in Europe. Remember that Europe invented freedom of

speech. And

I can confirm

that

the French government

is

not spared

by

public scrutiny.

In

fact, criticizing the French government is a national sport.

We

are even better at it than at soccer.

So

if you worry about free speech in Europe,

try

it the Russian way instead.

And

let me know

what

you think.

Because

the battlefield for democracy has not only shifted in recent years, it has expanded into new domains including so-called social networks.

The

forces that want to bring democracy down from the outside have spread and gained the high ground in the information space.

By

spreading fake news from the outside to polarize public debate,

they

are attempting to weaken democracy from within.

A

lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes,

Mark

Twain said.

We

cannot let that happen. Europe will never let go of the rules we have adopted democratically and sovereignly to preserve freedom of speech while preventing foreign interference to break down democratic debate. Everywhere I look, I also see assaults from within.

I

see political movements with authoritarian purpose gaining ground.

From

within democracies,

mature

democracies across Europe and North America.

The

ultimate goal of these political movements is clear cut, capturing power from within

and

set the conditions not to give it back.

Here

again, there is a playbook. There is a script.

Breaks

are broken.

Limits

are tested. Alignment with foreign authoritarian forces emerge. Principles of international law are contested. Force become a substitute to the law. Audacity outruns accountability.

Reason

gives way to emotions. Politics is turned into a permanent theater of outrage. Emotions are weaponized to amplify anger and fear.

Propaganda

is laundered through private proxies.

Political

campaigns are drenched in disinformation powered by AI. The goal is not persuasion but exhaustion. Dissent is outcast. Opponents, NGOs, civil rights defenders can hear the knock at their door.

Raids,

lawsuits, intimidation

dressed

up as public order. And free speech is indeed bounded. Compliance is sold as civic duty.

Data

are erased. Research topics are forbidden. Subsidies are cut for projects that don't align with official narratives. Traditional press is squeezed

and

reporters are harassed. Vote

is

tilted. Violence leaks at the edge of polling stations. Candidates are struck from ballots. Election results are contested in spectacular outbursts of violence,

targeting

core democratic institutions. Separation of power is questioned.

Executive

power swells.

The

law is bent.

Judges

are replaced or cowed. Courts are leaned on. Anti-corruption bodies are gutted, turned like knives against critics. And finally, submission is rewarded above merit. Contracts and tax breaks for friends, choke points for dissenters.

Innovation

withers,

and

in the silence that follows, repression grows tall. Down this road lies a darker claim. Ending what is described by some as a failed 200-year experiment. Replace democracy with a CEO monarchy. Far, very far from what Jefferson and Lafayette had in mind.

Some

will say I'm being dramatic.

That

we're still a long way from all this. No, we're not.

Popular

support for democracy has never been so low.

Last

year, the Economist Democracy Index fell again to the weakest score ever.

The

rise in dissatisfaction has been especially sharp since 2005. and this trend

has

been particularly severe in developed democracies. Hence,

the

most important question of our time.

Why

is democracy losing its momentum?

Why

are its enemies making so much progress?

The

answer to this question holds in two words. Democratic fatigue. Citizens in mature democracies grow frustrated, jaded, exhausted, disappointed.

Trust

is eroded.

The

civic heartbeat is dimming.

Power

to the people sounds like an echo instead of a call. Democratic fatigue.

The

feeling that citizens are not being heard.

That

the issues they care about never are addressed.

That

a distant elite in Paris, in DC, decides for them without accountability.

The

feeling that democratic government is failing to deliver.

That

it's breaking its promise of freedom, security, self-fulfillment.

The

sense that we're paying more and getting less.

That

public services are underperforming.

That

red tape blurs who does what.

And

to the kitchen table question, will my kids be

better

off than I am?

The

answer is no longer yes.

The

feeling that democracy doesn't shield us from global disruptions.

The

China shock destroyed millions of jobs and left entire regions of Europe and North America bleeding.

This

policy swelled US household debt and cast a shadow over American jobs. I actually did research on that. Meanwhile, deep shifts in family structures, rising immigration, transform our societies, fueling anxieties that democracy has struggled to address. digitalization, automation, split labor market, polarized it

and

hallowed out the middle class.

And

people feel left to pick up the pieces alone.

The

feeling that democracy is no longer striking this subtle balance between individual autonomy and common purpose.

That

is the necessary condition for self-fulfillment. And paradoxically, we have grown to lack both of them. Individual autonomy

and

sense of belonging. We lack autonomy as we feel hindered in our day-to-day lives. As we suffer from restrictions to our ability to choose to decide to act.

And

we lack common purpose as we no longer feel drawn into endeavors greater than ourselves.

And

finally,

what

may be the worst feeling of all, the feeling of injustice and frustration materialist societies generate sometimes,

despite

the unprecedented welfare we live in compared to the overwhelming majority of people on this planet.

This

democratic fatigue didn't appear by accident.

To

a large extent, it is our own responsibility.

It

is the result of decades of elite blindness to a world in upheaval. Denial of the legitimate wrath in the middle class, the working class, tired of feeling looked down upon and pushed aside. Failure of traditional political forces, including my own, to sketch a new horizon, to meet that anger with answers.

For

years now, traditional political forces, North America and Europe,

have

let our institutions rift until we, the people, have felt dispossessed

of

power.

And

the greater threat ahead of us is popular resignation.

And

let's face it, democratic fatigue is also the result of the grip we have let the so-called social networks

take

on

our

lives.

A

business model designed to drain cerebral bandwidth and exploit personal data to breed advertising revenues. Algorithms,

algorithms,

filters that segregate people into distinct bubbles, citizens turned into eyeballs, followers, users, public space privatization for the purpose of paying dividends.

Faced

with such fatigue, many will be tempted to give up.

To

give up on Lafayette and Jefferson's legacy.

To

concede to

what

is called now the neo-reaction to dark enlightenment to CEO monarchy.

We

won't,

we

will resist and we will fix democracy.

Fixing

democracy starts with fixing citizenship. Raising genuine citizens. Enlightened citizens, able and willing to take responsibility for themselves and for others. How do we get there? With a great deal of enlightenment, empowerment and courage. First enlightenment, veritas, as they say in Harvard.

For

power to the people only works if people are properly informed.

If

not, they're bound to air in the dark.

How

can we have a productive debate if we cannot agree on facts?

If

polarized fractions fight over fake news on social networks?

If

truth is being engineered for political purpose? Enlightenment starts in the classroom and continues here at Harvard in universities.

Where

professors dedicate their lives to better understanding the world

and

to sharing the breadth of their knowledge to their students.

Today

science is questioned.

Science

is mistrusted. Science is politicized.

Yet

to raise citizens,

we

need more research, more academic freedom, more science, not less.

Free

and open science.

We

need the competitive emulation of a vibrant academic community.

We

need the tough discipline of peer review.

We

need policy evaluation.

So

yes, we stand.

We

stand with free spirits who dream beyond limits.

With

faculty and students who dare.

We

stand with universities facing the threat of government control, restriction to their funding, constraint

on

their curricula or research project.

We

stand with students here

at

Harvard elsewhere. Enlightenment also rests on free press. Journalists that feel independent enough to report on what they see. Reporters free from editorial pressure or political constraints.

Media

with resources to investigate

and

reveal inconvenient truths.

So

yes, we stand.

We

stand with fact checkers, whistleblowers,

with

journalists who dare.

We

stand with independent media striving to do their work.

With

those fighting for information integrity.

That's

for enlightenment.

But

we also need empowerment. Democratic fatigue can lead to democratic backsliding.

When

the system seems broken, some starts asking,

why

not try another one?

Why

not concentrate power in fewer hands? Make it more efficient.

The

antidote to this, the only alternative to power concentration

is

power distribution.

Power

back to the people.

Start

with a full reset of who does what.

Public

sector, private sector. Federal government, local government. Government, agencies.

The

guiding principle should be subsidiarity. Allocate power where it is exercised most effectively.

The

goal should be to unleash energy.

To

give each person the means to stir their own life.

Open

new paths for passion and talent.

Then

continue with giving more agency to everyone.

In

all dimensions of their life.

People

are craving to make their own decisions.

People

no longer want to vote on a platform every four years or five years.

And

have no say in between. Let them participate more actively in policy making.

France

has experimented citizens' assemblies on topics like climate change

or

end-of-life care.

This

is a promising path.

Other

countries have built digital tools to consult people on a more regular basis.

To

leverage the wisdom of the crowds.

We

need continuous citizen participation.

They

need to be actors,

not

spectators. Enlightenment, empowerment are necessary conditions to fix democracies.

But

they won't be enough unless we restore courage.

In

1978,

Alexander

Solzhenitsyn delivered the commencement address at Harvard.

A

powerful speech in which he criticized Western democracies for their loss of civic courage.

Their

inability to confront major challenges.

He

blamed the passivity of the elite.

The

focus on material comfort.

The

spiritual decay.

He

coined this

the

decline of courage.

And

he was right.

We

need to restore

courage. Courage

to place values above interests.

Courage

to carry one's share of collective burdens with no certainty that others will do the same.

Even

if other free ride. Above all

if

other free ride.

Courage

to embrace the spiritual dimension of life and resist the temptation of comfort.

Courage

to look

at

the world with the eyes wide open.

And

be ready to make difficult decisions when they arise. Courage not to concede to instant pressure.

But

focus on the right thing to do.

And

this you can know.

Fear

the time when man's self will not suffer and die for a concept.

For

this one quality is man distinctive in the universe. Can one read

in

the grapes of wrath. Democracy can be fixed.

In

France. Like in the US.

If

we really want

it. Fixing

democracy is all about citizens. The making of men and women who listen and debate. Vote with clear judgment. Hold leaders to account. And step forward.

For

the common good. Enlightenment. Empowerment. And courage. Are the key. We are the key.

So

students.

Of

Harvard.

At

this moment of your life. As you're considering options. For what comes next. You.

Are

facing a decision.

What

citizens.

Will

you be.

Will

you be spectators. Or actors.

Will

you stand. For democracy.

When

addressing Congress. In 1824. Lafayette said that the US. Stand as a lesson to oppressors.

An

example to the oppressed.

And

a sanctuary. For the rights of mankind. May we live up.

To

the legacy. Of Jefferson.

And

Lafayette. May we be inspired. By the courage.

Of

Lafayette. When he sailed to America.

The

courage. Of those. Who landed. On the shores. Of Normandy. Of those. Around the world. Today. Who are risking. Everything they have.

For

freedom. And democracy.

We

owe it.

To

them.

We

owe it.

To

ourselves.

And

we owe it.

To

the generations.

To

come.

I

thank you.

That's

a lot. To reflect on. And a very powerful. Call to action. For the students. Assembled here. At the Kennedy School.

I

want to. Draw down. Draw. Drill down.

On

one of the. The key themes. That you put. Into juxtaposition. So you. You very passionately. Spoke about.

Both.

The resiliency. Of democracy. Over. History. But also. In the present day. Democratic fatigue.

And

you spoke about.

The

kitchen table concept. I want to link that. A bit. To the multilateral. So France. Like many other democracies. Including here in the US. Faces. Intense. Domestic. Pressures.

For

example. In the. Recent weeks. Of protest. Even those. Constituencies. Or politicians. In France. Who might say. Enhanced. Defensive. Spending. That's a. Call to action.

In

Europe. Might push back. If it seems like. The government. Is prioritizing. That middle.

Military

spending. Over. Sustaining. Important. Social. Safety.

Nets. So

the question.

More

broadly. Is. How. Do you see. The role. Of democratic. Reconciling. Those. Bread and butter. Concerns.

As

we would call them.

In

the US.

Of

their constituents.

With

the need. To invest.

In

that security. Or defense. Or the broader. Multilateral. Commitments. How do you tie. Those two together. In the context. Of reflecting. The democratic process. But also. Sustaining. A commitment. Multilateral. Goals.

That's

a very important.

That

number. Of governments.

In

Europe. North America. Are now facing.

We. Among

others. Are. Pretty. Budget. Constraint.

And

so. This question. Is for us. Pretty acute. I would say.

You

need to zoom out. For a second. And not be trapped. By the perception.

You

can. You may have. Of. How the people. Think. And what the. People's aspirations. Are.

Through

the lens.

Of

the public. Or the political. Debate. When. I.

Look

around me. In the district. Where I'm. Elected.

I.

See.

A.

Lot of energy.

I.

See.

A

lot of. Willingness.

Of

people. To.

You

know. Take responsibility. For themselves. But also. For others. In.

You

know. Whether. By running. For election. Or. Handling. Local. Organizations. Supporting. Supporting. Communities. And so on. And so forth.

So.

There. The energy. Is there.

It's

not that. The west. Is unable. To.

You

know.

Is

unable. To.

To.

Lift itself. To a level. Where.

He

would have. Where. The. They could. The west. Could combine. The preservation. Of. Welfare state.

And.

Addressing. The new. Challenges.

But

I think. The starting point. Is to. Is to. Liberate. The energies. That are. That are. There. In. Western. Societies.

But

that. Have been. Impeded.

By.

This.

This.

Kind of. Accumulation. Of. Norms. Bureaucratic. Bureaucratic. Constraints. And so on.

That

I've. Left.

People

feel. They're. Disempowered.

If

you.

You

know. If you start. By doing this.

If

you start. By releasing. The energy.

Then

you can get. Much more. Than you think. From. The people.

Of

Europe. And the people.

Of

North America.

But

this means. You need. To be ready. To be. Pretty radical. In the way. You're going. To reform. Government. Reform. The state.

The

way. You're going. To address. This. Issue. Of the accumulation. Of norm. The way. You're going. To open up.

The

door. To

answer. This

is just. My intuition. Because indeed.

If

you.

You

know.

If

you're going to.

To

address. This debate. By saying. Sorry guys. We're going to cut. The welfare state. Because now. We need to build. Weapons. And thanks. It's not gonna work. You're you're. You're not gonna get. Anyone to support. These things. Until. Of course. you're dragged because you haven't done the efforts you're dragged into a war

or

conflictuality that you have not chosen

there

is still time and space

to

restart so to speak

the

nuclear power plant and

draw the

people of our countries

into

a new endeavor that will incorporate new levels of security spending that will that will address the question of climate change and the

extra public

spending that is required and so on and so

forth and

so just staying on this theme for a moment you mentioned kind of the concept of radical changes are needed or radical adjustments to the structure the way in which the government is reflecting

the

population's desires and you talked in your speech about the example of citizen assemblies to address certain issues are there other examples that come to mind for you when you when you're thinking about what would be a radical change to help

no

so we so if I look at the French system there are multiple violations of subsidiarity

I

look at the mayors in my district

they

are subject to contradictory orders by the administration

the

funniest or

maybe

the saddest

story

I heard lately

was

a

letter

that all of the mayors in my district received and in other districts where they had to

appoint

within their local council a

person

that would be the

reference

point for mosquitoes

for

mosquitoes

you

know

if

if the state

is the

federal the central state is concerned about your mosquitoes

then

there needs to be in every 35,000 cities in France

a

reference point that the state can activate you know on mosquitoes

this

just drive the mayors crazy

and

they feel

like

they're treated like children

that

they're not

they're not

untrusted and they're

not

untrusted

and empowered and

so in the institutional life of ours we have many many examples of this

but

we also see

in

other dimensions of our life like on the in the workspace for instance

you

try to estimate correlations between elements of life at work

and

tendency to turn to you know extremist popular popular populist parties

you

will see that one dimension one correlation that that scores very high

is

the correlation between with the

electoral

choice and

whether

or not you're free to choose your schedule during the

week if

your schedule is imposed on you

and

you have hectic schedule

this

drives

drives

you to think that you have really no power on your

on

your own time on your own week and so on and this

is this

drives you

away

from democracy

I

mentioned that this idea that people are going to vote on a platform treating

all

topics every four or five years

we

have very different political systems but I know

of

zero person except those that have written them that actually read the political platforms

of

candidates for presidential in France and even

so

we spend so we

spend so

we

spend so

I've run for many elections so I spend you know spend nights writing your document every word is weighed you need to have all the right buzzwords in there

spend

a lot of time but then no one reads it

because

that's just not the way

it

might have been the way people allocated their attention like you know decades ago

but

it's not the way people allocate their attention now

so

there is something that's breaking up because it's like you know it's like a show

I'm

going to write a platform and I'm going to try and convince you to vote for my platform and you're going to pretend you read my platform that you support me and you vote for me there is something wrong about

that and

what's wrong about that is that citizens are deprived from agency from their real ability to affect to stir the policy making

so

you see in several

in

many many different fields of our democratic life whether it's political cultural economic and so on

there

is

a

lot we can do to restore agency to restore power and to

restore

subsidiarity

okay

so I know there is a lot we can explore with regard to France's role in the international stage and its leadership

I'm

in the interest of time I'm going to ask one question in that space and then I'm actually going to open it up to the audience

so

I'd like to ask

you

know obviously we're all watching the news there's been a lot of interesting highlights coming out of New York this week

there's

an interesting dynamic that it seems to exist between President Macron and President Trump

more

broadly what would you say is France's strategy for dealing with President Trump and the current US administration

and

are there opportunities that his posture has created

that

otherwise may not have been there for France or how you see your role in shaping the international conversation

so

there is a very long-standing friendship between France and the US deeply rooted in our common history as I was

mentioning

earlier we

have

not always agreed on everything

but

we've been together in the most important moments of our

history I think

that those ideas of freedom and democracy are ingrained in the DNA of our both countries

and

eventually that's what gets us

to go

back to each other

even

when we have some disagreements or tough negotiations

now

in the more recent or in the current context

an

important dimension of the

relationship

between France and the US is the personal relationship between President Macron

and

President Trump they've worked together

back

in the first

Trump

term

they've you

know they've

learned

to know each other to

work

together on important security issues and others and this is of course instrumental

as

we are

dealing

with Ukraine as we are dealing with the Middle East

and

many other issues

that

we the US and France as permanent members of the Security Council have responsibility

to

handle

to

handle

so I

would indeed say that this personal relationship is

very

important

to make

the most of this long-standing relationship

thank

you

all

right I would like to ask the audience to offer up their questions I know we have some mics moving around are we meeting the

okay

so let's start on this side

Sarah

yes we'll start with this gentleman the mic is coming around

hi

Minister thank you so much for being here my name is Roy Schwarz Tichon I'm from Israel I want to strongly support your position about Ukraine and nuclear proliferation

I

wanted to ask you recently France have spearheaded efforts to recognize the Palestinian and this country while you have a country

while you haven't

yet recognized many countries followed and have recognized due to your effort although they meet only two of the four necessary criteria in the Montevideo Convention

what

should we interrupt that in the context of more than 10 territories with more than more 1 million square kilometers and 50 million citizens who aspire to be recognized like

Taiwan

Taiwan Catalonia

him

and Golan Heights and more over

and

don't you

fear

that it will incentivize terror like the October 7th attack

what

will incentivize terrorist attack

so

the answer to this

second

part of your question is no absolutely not

in

fact

the

efforts that France led with Saudi Arabia

was

not efforts to

to

recognize the Palestinian state

was

to revive or save the two-state solution

that

has been seen

for

decades by the entire international community as the only solution

likely

to bring peace and stability to the region

now

this solution was

close

to collapsing or vanishing

because

of 7th of October

and

the anti-semitic massacre that led that the

the

Hamas inflicted on Israel

but

also threatened by the indefinite continuation of Israeli operations in Gaza and the accelerated settlements in the West

Bank and

so

our

idea with Saudi Arabia

was

basically to do our utmost

when

we started working on it one year ago

to

remove

all

possible obstacles on the path towards the state of

the the state

of Palestine

what

is the state

of Palestine what is the

first obstacle that we have removed

until

September 12th

two

weeks ago

there

was no international condemnation of Hamas for its crimes

no

international call for the disarmament of Hamas

no

international call for its exclusion of any future role in the governance of Gaza and Palestine

since Friday

September 12th

is

no longer the case

because the it was because

of a resolution that France and Saudi Arabia that was adopted

the

overwhelming majority of countries

the

UN

it

made sound like a surprise to some of you

but

until two weeks ago

there

had never been any texts adopted that the United Nations condemning Hamas for their crimes

et

je suis sûr que vous pouvez comprendre pourquoi.

Many

countries from the Arab world, many countries from the south

did

not feel compelled

to

condemn Hamas and to call for his disarmament. This is done.

We

have changed the mindset. Everyone now sees Hamas for what they are,

a

terrorist organisation. Second obstacle on the path towards a state of Palestine that we try to remove.

The

fact that

the

Arab peace initiative, this idea that the Arab countries will at some point establish normal relationship with Israel.

This

was kind of going away

because

Arab countries, especially in the region, they also have a public opinion for some of them. And so

stating

out loud

that

they're going to establish relationship with Israel is politically extremely costly. It was publicly impossible until what we did.

What

we've achieved is not only to get them to say it again

and

to endorse a text that says it clearly,

but

we got them to go one step further.

Read

the New York declaration paragraph 34 and 35

and

you will see that we got them including Qatar, including Turkey, including Algeria,

even

though Algeria is not concerned by what I'm just going to say. We got them to say that they aspire not only to have normal relationship with Israel,

but

to enter into a common regional architecture in the model of ASEAN in Asia or OSE in Europe. We got them to say, the Arab countries, things relative to the security of Israel that they have never said before.

And

yes,

the

counterparty, so to speak,

of

this condemnation of Hamas, of this security guarantees provided by Arab countries, is

the

recognition of the state of Palestine. And all of this was holding together.

And

now, since it's

been

an important week for the Israeli-Palestine conflict, let me also tell you how this

has

also been thought by France and Saudi Arabia

as

complementary to the US efforts.

First, the

way I described our initiative, I'm sure some of you

already feel

that there is something similar to the Abraham Accord logic. What's the Abraham Accord logic?

I

get the Arab countries to provide guarantees to Israel

and

I, the US, provide security to those countries.

In

some way, what we just did

is

the same thing.

We

get the Arab countries to provide security for Israel and in exchange, I give them comfort by saying that I recognize the state of Palestine.

And

so we are basically,