Makron: “Europe is not a supermarket, but a common destiny”

The main topic of conversation of Emmanuel Macron eight European publications (Le Figaro, Suddeutsche Zeitung, Le Soir, The Guardian, Corriere Della Sera, El Pais, Gazeta Wiborcza and Le Temps) was the place of France in the international arena.

Two days after the clear victory of the movement “Go Republic!” in the parliamentary elections of 18 June about the internal politics of speech does not go. Nevertheless, it was affected by all other topics, including the candidacy of Paris to host the Olympics in 2024, which the President of France will present in Lausanne before the evaluation Commission of the IOC on July 11.

Le Temps: You have gained new legitimacy after the victory of the movement “Go Republic!” in the parliamentary elections. It becomes an asset for your leadership in Europe?

Emmanuel macron: the Leadership does not simply appear. It is formed with the involvement of other countries and figures, and conclusions about it can be done only on the basis of the obtained results. While it would be overly presumptuous to say that France has a new leadership in Europe. The real question is the purpose of our work. But the starting point is the crisis of the Western democracies, which have emerged in the XVIII century on the basis of unprecedented balance between the protection of individual liberty, political democracy, and the formation of market economies.

The combination of all of these benefits led to the recognition of personal freedoms, promotion of social progress and the formation of the prospects for the middle class. But with the end of thirty Glorious years doubt. France learned this the hard way despite the fact that she had the most developed social model. What we see today when we look at the world? The rise of illiberal democracies and radical sentiment in Europe, the strengthening of authoritarian regimes that undermine the vitality of democracy, and the partial suspension of the US from the world.

Thus, the first question is not whether or not there French leadership, if we inflate the chest more than others. No, the question is to understand how to protect our common welfare, that is freedom and democracy, the ability of our people and societies to be independent and free, to ensure social justice, to preserve our planet in terms of climate change. Without these shared benefits may not be sustainable and prosperous future. Our goal is to understand how we can win this fight, the responsibility for which, I am convinced, lies in Europe. Why? Because democracy is said to have originated on this continent. The US love freedom as we do. But they don’t have our desire for justice. Europe is the only region in the world where so closely intertwined personal freedom, the spirit of democracy and social justice. Will she be able to defend the fundamental values that have enriched the world for decades, or retreating under the onslaught of illiberal democracies and authoritarian regimes? That is the question.

— What exactly can be done to push forward Europe? What is your project of rethinking the Eurozone? How to convince the Germans of the merits of your project?

— If we do not fully understand the extent of the challenge, you can continue all night to think about how the location of the new European Agency, and where to send funds of a budget… thus, we put ourselves outside of history. I don’t want to. Angela Merkel, too. The question is, how do we restore the dynamism, the ability to carry along. France will not have any driving force without a clear rhetoric and a clear view of the world. It will not be her without strengthening the economy and society. That is why I instructed the government to run the France of the fundamental reform. At stake are the credibility, our effectiveness and strength. Force alone can not a long time to eat only one weakness of others. Germany, which has undertaken reforms a decade and a half ago, today recognizes that this situation is unsustainable. I wish we could form a common force. My approach to the Franco-German Duo implies trust Alliance. I wish we went back to the spirit of cooperation that had once been Francois Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl. You can’t go into a meeting of the Council without a common position. This does not mean that we agree with each other on all issues. But we don’t want to waste time and to ask others to resolve our differences.

— This Europe should continue to offer protection?

— Yes, because the middle class in all our societies doubt. He had the feeling that Europe is being built in spite of it. This Europe itself pulls itself down. Need to create a Europe that offers protection, has a real common defence policy. Need to achieve greater efficiency in relation to large migration flows through drastic reform of the system of protecting our borders, immigration policy and the right to asylum. The current system shifts to one entire load and will not be able to repel new waves of migration. This is the first step. Deepening of institutions is impossible without the restoration of the integrity of Europe. If then we want to move on to the next stage, we need to ensure greater integration within the Eurozone. That is why I actively defend the idea of forming a budget for the Eurozone with a democratic leadership system. This is the only way to restore the convergence of our economies and countries. If this is not done, we will weaken the Euro area. You need to create the pillars of responsibility and solidarity. It seems to me that Germany is ready for it.

— Do you think that the Germans are ready for a change?

— I am convinced. The Chancellor radically changes the situation in the sphere of defense and security. She questioned formed after the Second world war the deep bans. In the coming years, Germany will spend more on defense than France. Who would have thought? Anyway, Germany well imagine the limitations of action without the full involvement of Europe, in particular in the field of military interventions. She understands that our fate was tragic. She needs France to protect itself and Europe and to ensure our common security. I think that marked me for dynamics including German companies. Our job as leaders is to deliver. National egoism is a slow poison that weakens our democracy and our collective ability to cope with presenting to us a historic challenge. I know that the Chancellor understands this.

Today Europe looks fragmented. Again there was the section to the East and the West. What to do with such a divided Europe?

I don’t believe in the existence of a conflict between East and West Europe. There is tension because of the differences in our views and recent history. I’ll never forget the words of Bronislaw Geremek (Bronislaw Geremek), which met about 20 years ago during the expansion of Europe: “Europe does not realize all that we have to.” In the view of his generation that clings to the Enlightenment, Western Europe has committed treason because it allowed the construction of the wall and a section of the continent. When I hear today some European leaders, I feel a double betrayal. They decide to abandon principles, to turn back to Europe, to take a cynical approach to the Union, which, in their opinion, should only make loans, not caring about the respect for values. Europe is not a supermarket, and a common destiny. It weakens, if refusal to accept its principles. Not respecting these rules of the countries of Europe must fully feel the political consequences. Moreover, it does not concern only the dialogue between East and West. I’ll speak with everyone and to show respect, but do not compromise principles of Europe, solidarity and democratic values. If Europe accepts this, it means that it is weak and has already disappeared. I don’t agree.

— Dialogue, not sanctions?

Is the dialogue. But it must go specific solutions. I want to acknowledge the historical responsibility of the Europeans. We need to promote a Europe that is moving towards greater economic and social well-being. Provide Europe protection should be reflected also in the economic and public sphere. Focusing on detached work, as is the case for many years, we approach the problem of Europe with a completely wrong way. Is not mistaken. The main defenders of this ultra-unbalanced Europe collapsed in the UK. That relied on Brakcet? Migrants from Eastern Europe who take British jobs. Defenders of Europe lost, because the British middle class said, “Enough!” This imbalance fuels radical sentiments. We can not continue to build Europe, sitting in offices, to allow the situation to escalate. Theoretical work leads to absurd situations. I think I can explain the French middle class that the company closed in France and move to Poland because it is cheaper, and that the construction companies hire poles because they need to pay less? The system is flawed.

— How do you see the future of Britain’s relationship with the European Union? Is whether open the door to reverse?

— It is open to the moment until the move was over the threshold. To say that it’s closed, not in my competence. Anyway, with the advent of graphics and to give back becomes very difficult. Do not be fooled. I want to begin the discussion fully coordinated at the European level. I am against bilateral negotiations, because we need to keep the interest of the EU in the short, medium and long term. In any case, France is planning to maintain and strengthen its strong relationship with Britain in defence and security. The basis for his serve reached at Lancastercounty of the conference agreement. We also intend to actively cooperate in the field of defence and counter-terrorism. We have already adopted a joint action plan in the fight against radical sentiments on the Internet. Our destinies are linked: terrorist cells don’t recognize the European boundaries. Finally, I would like to develop our cooperation in the area of migration. It is absolutely necessary to prevent the emergence of new distracting elements like the camps of the migrants. Defining our relationship is pragmatism.

— Requires any revision of the Schengen zone, which includes Switzerland? Is it necessary to force those countries that refuse migrants to take them?

— I am in favour of the Schengen zone, which allows free movement of people within the European Union and is one of the fundamental elements of our European citizenship. If we want to ensure that free movement of people, it is necessary to strengthen controls at the external borders of the European Union. I wish we promptly provided all the necessary funds from the European Agency for border and coastal security, primarily for crisis management at the borders.

Then, there is the issue of refugees. Refugees are people who seek asylum in our country. We’re talking about people who risk their lives in their country, put everything on the line to get to the us, fleeing from war-torn countries. We must show in their attitude of hospitality and humanity. The problem is that in many countries, including France, the consideration of applications for asylum takes too much time: filing, registration, consideration of the case, not to mention delays in administrative challenges and appeals to various authorities. These procedures can last up to two years. All this time people can not live in a country unsettled. People develop, establish family ties… in other words, the existing system is no longer satisfactory in the context of this migration pressure.

So I commissioned a large-scale reform of the asylum system in France: it involves the decentralization process and reduced processing time. The goal is to speed up this process by half, to six months on all treatments.

Further, there are migrants who do not fall under the right to asylum and, therefore, must not remain in France. Their situation needs to be handled in accordance with our right within the framework of wider international cooperation. It is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of their removal abroad, actively work with their native countries and transit States, successfully deal with the mafia who profit from human grief. All these issues I am in favour of major reforms, which will lead to a common European philosophy. In particular, we should understand the plight of people who move from one country to another in the hope of getting asylum.

After Breccia and election trump can you say that your victory stopped the rise of populism in Europe? Model Rules apply in other countries?

— I too like the concept of “populism” because it has a few stains. So, many among the right and left told me that I was a populist. When the party is exhausted, it is surprising that people can talk to people! If populism is the case, there is nothing wrong. But I don’t believe in demagoguery, which is to flatter the people, to say what he expects to enjoy his fears. I am not so conceited to think that my election is something stopped. The French always like this: when you least expect it, they rise in a common impulse. France is not the country that reformed. It is a country that changes itself, the country of the revolution. I mean, the French reformed nothing for as long as possible. Now they saw that he was on the brink, and responded. My election and received a majority in the National Assembly were not the end, but rather a starting point that requires further effort. This is the beginning of the Renaissance of France and hopefully Europe. It will allow to rethink the balance of national, European and international level, to return to great plans to regain the ability to look a situation in the face, not to play on the fears, and turn them into energy. Because the fears do exist, how and what parts of the society. Magic solutions here. Need to conduct day-to-day struggle. I made a bet on the mind of the French. I did not flatter them, and appealed to their intelligence. Democracy, exhausted politicians, who believe that their fellow citizens are stupid. They play with the demagoguery of their fears and contradictions, rely on their reflexes. The crisis of Western consciousness is a very serious problem, and one person cannot change anything. Anyway, I try to restore the thread of history and energy of the European people. To stop the rise of radical sentiments and demagoguery. Because this is a civilizational struggle.

— How to deal with the risk that embodies Donald trump?

— First of all, Donald trump — a man who was elected by the American people. Today the difficulty is that he has not yet developed a conceptual framework of its international policy. So his politics can be unpredictable, which causes discomfort to the world. In the field of combating terrorism, he is committed to the same efficiency that I do. At the same time, I don’t agree with some of his decisions primarily on climate. Anyway, I hope that the US will be able to return to the Paris agreement. I reach out to Donald Trump and want him to change opinion. Because everything is connected. Not to strive for effective fight against terrorism and at the same time not to take commitments on climate change.

— If Syria will be broken red line against the use of chemical weapons, France is ready to strike alone? And can she do it?

Yes. If you set the red line, but can’t gain respect, then show its weaknesses. I don’t want to. If it turns out that the country used chemical weapons, and we can trace its origin, then France will strike for the destruction of discovered stockpiles of chemical weapons.

— There is a complexity with areas of defense. Will require cooperation with other countries of the coalition…

— Yes, but what has blocked the whole process in 2013? The US drew a red line, but ultimately decided not to intervene. That weakened France? The fact that it has established a political red line but not the consequences of its violation. Unleashed that Vladimir Putin’s hand in other regions? He saw before him the people who set the red line, but do not achieve compliance.

I respect Vladimir Putin. We had him in a constructive conversation. We have serious disagreements, particularly over Ukraine, but he saw my position. We had a long talk alone with him international issues, as well as the protection of NGOs and freedoms in his country. What I said at the press conference, he heard for the first time. This is my course. I firmly say with all partners, but first talk to them tet-a-tet. Today Vladimir Putin continue to consider the Ukrainian question in the framework of the Minsk process and channel four. At the beginning of July to the G20 summit in Hamburg we will meet in this format with Ukraine and Germany. And the theme of Syria. I am deeply convinced that in this matter we need diplomatic and political road map. Only military force will not solve the issue. We collectively made that mistake. Innovation on my part in this matter is that I did not say that the departure of Bashar al-Assad is a precondition for everything. The fact that no one has introduced me to a legitimate successor.

My position on Syria is very clear. First, it is a rigorous fight against all terrorist groups. They are our enemies. This region served as a basis for the preparation of terrorist attacks and feeds one of the centers of Islamist terrorism. To eliminate them, we need the cooperation of all, including Russia. Second, is the stability of Syria: I don’t want to become a failed state. I will put an end to neo-conservatism, which was brought to France ten years ago. Democracy is formed from the outside and without the knowledge of the peoples. France was not involved in the war in Iraq was right. What we saw as a result of these interventions? A failed state in which terrorist groups thrive. I don’t want the same thing happened in Syria. Thirdly, I have two red lines on chemical weapons and humanitarian access. I clearly stated this to Vladimir Putin and will be adamant on these issues. Therefore, the use of chemical weapons followed by the answer, including even the one in France. From this point of view, France will occupy the same position as the United States. Fourth: I strive for stability in Syria in the medium term. This implies respect for minorities. We need to find ways and means for diplomatic initiatives, which relies on adherence to these four principles.

— Now the “Islamic state” (banned in Russia as a terrorist organization — approx. ed.) is losing territory in Syria and Iraq, but our democracies have to deal with the “budget” terrorism. How to find a balance between exceptional measures and the need to protect freedoms?

— Let’s talk first about the extraordinary situation in France. The state of emergency is to counter the imminent threat that is a result of serious violations of public order. However, the threat has been sustained. Therefore the need-oriented long-term organization. I will extend the state of emergency until November 1 that will give Parliament the minimum necessary time to adopt all necessary measures to ensure the security of the French.

On Thursday, the Council of Ministers shall be submitted to the relevant document. What is his spirit? It will take into account all types of threats and in particular the actions of individuals that we have seen for the last time. We provide special measures to combat Islamic terrorism. It is not the weakening of the legal state and the import state of emergency in the state. It is necessary to create instruments to deal with this new risk under the control of the judges, both administrative and judicial. Need for new solutions that would support in the fight against Islamist terrorism. In this our society needs to get out of a permanent state of emergency.

Then it is necessary to strengthen the coordination of all our intelligence services in the face of terrorist threats. In this regard, I have advocated a national coordination in intelligence and the fight against terrorism, in particular the formation of the national counterterrorism center.

Finally, it suggests a consistent international policy and the ability to speak with all parties. This is my diplomatic principle. I already five times managed to speak to President Erdogan. Twice with Iranian President Rouhani. I took Vladimir Putin. France is not obliged to choose one camp against another. This is its strength and diplomatic history. We need to rediscover the consistency and force of the international policy that underpins trust in us.

Are you talking about the dialogue with Vladimir Putin. But his position has not changed on any matter. In Ukraine, in the Donbas are fighting, and the Crimea occupied… are You looking for a new method?

— When I talk about open dialogue with Vladimir Putin, not saying he is a magical solution. What motivates Vladimir Putin? The restoration of a strong Russian identity to keep the country. Russia itself became a victim of terrorism. Its borders also have uprising, and traces the threat posed by aggressive religious identity. This is his main thread, including in Syria. I don’t think it is associated with Bashar al-Assad bonds of indissoluble friendship. He has two main objectives: to fight terrorism and to prevent the collapse of the state. So in Syria there are points of contact. For a long time we rested in the person of Bashar al-Assad. But Assad is not our enemy, and the enemy of the Syrian people. The goal of Vladimir Putin — to restore the Great Russia, because, in his opinion, this is the condition of survival of his country. If he is committed to our weakening or disappearance? I don’t think. Vladimir Putin his vision of the world. He believes that Syria is a key in terms of a neighborhood issue. What can I do? To achieve collaboration on Syria to combat terrorism and to find a real exit from the crisis. I think it’s feasible. I will continue a very demanding interlocutor in the field of the rights and freedoms of the individual. In any case, we have a duty to protect Europe and its allies in the region. Here we don’t have to compromise anything.

— What about Turkey? How to build relations with a country that does not share our values?

— At the moment Turkey offends some of our values. Nevertheless, it shares some of our interests. First of all, we are connected with Turkey by the Syrian conflict. Turkey represents a key element of our regional policy, because it is both a neighbor of Syria and a country that accepts large numbers of refugees and cooperates in the fight against terrorism. I had a demanding and clear dialogue with President Erdogan. We need a dialogue with Turkey. I want to be in the migration issue, this dialogue was a European and coordinated. Europe signed the Treaty belatedly forced, even though it gave results. It is not necessary to repeat that mistake. As for the rest, given the current position of Turkey, it is clear that to move forward in the process of European integration better not.

Sport promotes diplomacy. You decided to submit to the IOC candidature of Paris to host the Olympics in 2024. Do you think that here we are talking not just about the candidate city?

— I go on 11 and 12 July in Lausanne, and then in September in Lima, to demonstrate thereby the desire of the whole country. Why? Because it’s not just a sporting event: it is responsible including policies that we want to fight against people with disabilities. It is not only Olympic but also Paralympic games. It’s part of national pride and a movement, great economic event. In addition, this step demonstrates that our long fight against terrorism, we do not refuse from large events. Finally, it is the European and French-speaking candidate. Not just the candidacy of Paris or France. This is a manifestation of the will, pride and splendour, in which the country needs. I think it’s very serious. This is a very strong element that confirms that the world consists not only of violence but also shared values, reconciliation, joy, peace events.