There is the display elements and reality

In his foreword to the white paper of defence and national security, Nicolas Sarkozy described a world "more uncertain and unpredictable." What should the French citizen expect

FRANOIS HEISBOURG. When we started our reflections on the defence white paper, we went from that of 1994, the first of the Soviet après-ère. There were already described a number of current topics: proliferation, terrorism, importance of the non-governmental activities... Today, we reached a description of the world in the fifteen years also different from that of today as was that of 1994 over the period of the cold war. A world not only uncertain and volatile, but which can occur at any time a major strategic break: a virus, an inter-State war in the far East, the 9 / 11 type attacks... A world where aggression can be also well external internal, accidental or deliberate. Take the example of Hurricane Katrina: it's a non-intentional phenomenon, but an intentional act would have called the same responses in the field. I would add that in 1994 we were doing the finding of the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the presence of a single superpower, the United States. Today, even if we reject the decline of the United States, we are confronted with multiple powers.

LOUIS GAUTIER. I agree on the objective finding of François Heisbourg regarding new threats. But the panorama described by the whitepaper has several weaknesses. It has for example underestimated return to conventional warfare, conflicts increasingly hard, more and more long, as in Iraq or Afghanistan. Not not both in the military plan that policy. Where a lack of questioning on the operations carried out by the West, on the risks of getting bogged down in our armed forces called in different theatres, at the expense of strategic capabilities in Europe. The second great alleges that I am the door white paper on safe amalgam. Of course, no one denies that globalization blurs the boundaries between internal and external threats. Need to strengthen cooperation between civil and military means to certain types of threat, but it should also be very mindful of the legal framework of this cooperation and not confuse missions. My last point is more philosophical. It concerns the concept of resilience, i.e., the ability of the nation facing a crisis. Stop subscribe Western societies to a culture of fear! An epidemic is still not a war operation!

F. H. I am write in false against this last remark: it is not to create fear, but rather to avoid it. The level of risk is increased. The exercises conducted by the Government show that we are poorly armed to deal with a type pandemic threat. I recalled that in 2003 the heat wave caused an excess of 15,000 people in France! As to the criticism on the underestimation of the hardness of the conflict, it is incomprehensible. On the contrary, it is one of the threads of the white paper. With practical recommendations, including the protection of troops in Afghanistan.

The Afghanistan, precisely: with the death of 10 of our soldiers, the France discovered in war. Should it remain

L. g. Yes. A brutal withdrawal would add to the chaos. But with the next elections in the United States and Afghanistan opens a window to rethink strategy including this time logic for military disengagement. We are in this country for seven years. Conditions such as the postulates of intervention have evolved considerably. Initially, it was to destroy the shrine of Al-Qaeda, to overthrow the regime of the Taliban, to establish the rule of law. It is on these bases that in France the decision to intervene is made in a period of cohabitation. Then, after 2003, Americans support increased with the dispatch of special forces. The international force is passed under the command of NATO, the quotas were increased. Today, the balance is wrong: the country is fragmented, the Karzai regime is weak and corrupt, the opium trafficking prosperous, militarily we passed also unpopular pacification actions that doomed to failure. Yet, ever Americans and Europeans have not led an in-depth reflection on the excesses and the outcomes of this conflict. A regional conference is necessary.

F. H. I do not return on the context, unanimously described the military hardening of commitments. And on the measures to be taken to strengthen the protection of our soldiers, individually and collectively, with equipment and intelligence. From a strategic point of view, it should be avoided to scatter in different theatres. I also share the opinion of Louis Gautier on the absence of strategic design of NATO. It is by default. But the end of the Bush in the United States administration in effect provides the conditions for a new strategic review. In the meantime, this war is legitimate. It is to build a line of defence against Al-Qaeda and we have a duty of solidarity with our partners, Europeans especially. On 22 September, the Parliament must vote on the commitment of our soldiers on the spot. They need the support of the nation.

L. G. I'm suspicious of the question to be asked. It cannot accept a vote to the fishing expedition...

F. H. Whatever the issue, you will have to vote "Yes" or "no". This binary logic shows that it is in a logic of war.

Can the recent conflict between the Russia and the Georgia resurrect the cold war

F. H. No, this is not a cold war. The Russia has thawed in the microwave for a conflict in the Caucasus. To my knowledge, it is not today an ideology of domination around the world, nor the means demographic, economic, and military of the former USSR. However, I am more pessimistic than many commentators. Recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Russians have broken with their constant policy since the

end of the cold war: to respect territorial integrity of States in General and from States of the former Soviet Empire in particular. If the Russia is opposed with virulence to our policy in Kosovo, it was this principle. He went in smoke. China, the countries of Central Asia are furious. This is also where the political and strategic price paid by the Russia is the highest.

L. G. We are in a conflict regional post-cold war era. But change the resulting from other conflicts, it is that one is directly dealing with a nuclear power. In the Gulf or in Kosovo, there was not this "nuclear lock". The Russians led an unacceptable operation. It cannot accept that the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity are violated. Will the European Union, however, convince the Russia that if she says, she and not against it. The Europeans have everything to gain to display their strict strategic interests in this crisis in rejecting interference Atlanticist.

In this international context, the military means of the France become obsolete

F. H. Armaments, there is a paradox: less expensive means of information costs following a reverse curve to those of major equipment, aircraft, frigates, armoured... This is the logic of Moore's law! Twelve years ago, the Helios 1 satellite cost EUR 2.3 million. Tomorrow, Musis will be infinitely greater capacity for less than one-fifth of that price. The Act of military programming will be consistent with the priorities of the white paper on the knowledge, the anticipation, the strike in depth or anti-submarine Or is going to stay in a logic of combat equipment In any bureaucratic institution, and the army is, innovation provokes resistance. This is normal. For now, I am confident. The budgetary arbitration should follow the decisions taken at the highest level of the State.

L. G. The question is more whether the France is a great military power. The mass is said for a long time. The France and the United Kingdom are not large operations outside a coalition. The real question is whether if the France will be a military power differentiated in Europe. The France had articulated its political autonomy on strategic elements, such as nuclear deterrence or a technological base of independent defence. Today, through some transfers to Europe or NATO, the political message is garbled. How much will be given to nuclear deterrence, space, anticipation For conventional arms, things would go better if European defence integration was achieved. It is a great site...

F. H. Do not simply believe in numbers of vessels, aircraft or tanks. When we have the means to anticipate, then it is taken seriously. With intelligence, we have the chance to escape from the top!

The left denounced positions Nicolas Sarkozy on NATO's Atlanticist. In practical terms, that is that this will change if the France returned to permanent command structures

L. G. Operationally, little step. On the plan policy, much. I do not share the bet of the President, who thinks that the full return to NATO except the nuclear Committee, Editor's note will advance European defence. Instructed by history, François Mitterrand refused this logic. Jacques Chirac had attempted the bet and failed. The risk, it is a return without conditions, without consideration. In to attendance, it weakens still. I prefer that the France is the locomotive of the European defence rather than one of the cars of NATO.

F. H. I do not have the same reading of history as proposed by Nicolas Sarkozy is the inverse of what were its predecessors! Anyone tried yet approach. I don't know if this will succeed, but not the result prejudging. Operationally, I agree, a formal reintegration will not change much.

The white paper calls for the establishment of a European capacity of 60,000 men to be deployed for a year on a distant theatre. Is this realistic given the State of the twenty-seven defence budgets

F. H. European countries had signed for such a purpose, they have forgotten it. The France operational contract deals with 30,000 men. It would be a farce if the 27 States of the Union did not set the target of 60,000. But it is true, the Europe of defence was very difficult to move forward.

L. G. In the matter, the Europe of defence will be crisis blows. But it is good to recall the signed commitments. Is there the will, knowing that it will be difficult. Either Europe runs the risk of to weaken.

Finally, Nicolas Sarkozy will be breaking defence human

F. h. Yes, because it will be anchored the doctrine of security of the nation and globalization through the assertion of new priorities. But all this will take time, even if there are areas where you can go quickly, such as intelligence. Once, it will be in the coming weeks if what has been decided is found in the military planning law and the policy of programming for the Internal Security Act.

L. G. There is the display elements and reality. The rationalization of our military aircraft, for example, marks not a real break, but the pursuit of efforts engaged for a long time and arrested during the second term of Jacques Chirac. Furthermore, the race of Nicolas Sarkozy resembles that of Hare in the fields: zigzag! Voltes-faces on the Afghanistan, conflicting arbitration on the carrier, and I am not the manner in which has been obtained the ceasefire with the Russians, without safeguards...

F. H. With Russian troops 28 kilometres from Tbilisi, it was better than a finely chiseled text which would have applied three weeks of writing.