PAPE: Did the invasion of Iraq alter the landscape of power in the world?
VILLEPIN: We do not think that military power alone brings about more security, and the situation in the Middle East shows this. You need a broad political strategy that is defined by the international community. We have a unique opportunity today because more and more countries in the world are either democratic or aspire to democracy.
Has the Iraq conflict changed relationships inside Europe?
Europeans realized the absolute need for unity and for a strong position on the international scene. Out of that came a new momentum to move forward with a united European defense. There is an increased awareness regarding Europe’s need to assume responsibility for its own security. Recent interventions in Macedonia and central Africa have shown Europe’s determination.
Europe’s violent history of wars and tragedies has enabled us to draw lessons for the present. Power can be strong only when it is legitimate and when it serves the people and higher purposes. The risk today, which threatens our American friends, is that a country relying solely on its own power will draw together all the forces of opposition, frustration and resentment. France is a friend and an ally of the U.S. And in this difficult time, out of kinship, France is telling the U.S. what it believes is right and good.
Are there lasting changes to the world order, and today’s geopolitical realities, that people have not yet recognized?
We, the French, are very much aware of the American trauma caused by 9/11. The United States realized then that with power comes vulnerability. Our belief is that in the face of this vulnerability, the traditional use of force won’t work. The nature of power is changing. It has to be consistent with the people’s aspirations. Early this year people demonstrated over war and peace, over justice and unequal development and globalization, as was made clear by the alternative-globalization movement. We have to take these concerns into account.
When you speak of a “multipolar world,” what poles do you have in mind?
On this concept, there is some misunderstanding among members of the American administration. They are thinking of late-19th-century Europe and the Concert of Nations, in which there was permanent rivalry. But multipolarity, for us, has nothing to do with opposing American power.
Multipolarity is already a reality from the EU to China, Mercosur in South America and regional efforts in Africa. If we peacefully develop links between these different regions, we will have prosperity, security and stability. It isn’t rivalry and it isn’t competition. It is “complementarity” between poles. It is easier to coordinate five, six or seven poles than to coordinate 200 countries. If the Middle East could organize itself, then the groundwork would be laid for development and peace. It is the best response we can have to religious fundamentalism.
In the same spirit, Europe is a pole of stability because we are engaged in building the European Union, which will soon include 25 countries, and then 30. It is not by allowing the law of the jungle to spread across the planet that we will build a new world order. I have often said to neoconservatives in the United States that it is not as though Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus. All of us have a contribution to make to peace and stability in the world.
The Bush administration says there’s no need for countries that truly share Western values to contest the exercise of American influence. True?
Countries like ours have already been through these sorts of problems. France has been through the decolonization of sub-Saharan Africa and the Maghreb [formerly French North Africa]. We have experienced situations where the sensibility and the identity of a people were at stake, and we learned our lessons, sometimes in very painful circumstances. Based on this experience, France wants to work and help the U.S. because we share common values and a common destiny.
What lessons does the situation in Iraq offer?
The big lesson from Iraq is that the international community should remain united, and that if you want to be effective, you need its legitimacy. Secondly, nothing could be worse than if the U.S. were to enter a new period of isolationism. The U.S. has to assume its responsibilities in the world, and it must do so as part of a team. That is the best way to promote the unity of the international community.
