[...] only because of this, my candidacy is concerned with the management of our armies,
since the Head of State is the Commander-in-Chief in the Constitution of the 5th Republic.
I therefore could not consider my candidacy without thinking about this aspect of the mission
that the people entrusts to the man or the woman it elects.
I've been doing this for a long time because I know that resorting to force is a serious task in the life of our societies.
It is irreversible, and avoiding to resort to it requires difficult efforts.
I did it because, as many of you, I have a passion for the history of france, and force played a role in this history.
It has not always been the same role over the years, but it has been a decisive one when, for example,
as was said a few minutes ago, the Great Revolution of 1789 proclaimed
liberty and equal rights for all human beings, which brought down the old regime,
and prompted, only because the revolution occurred, a reaction that began not in the form of arguments but in the form of armies.
It is clear that the Europe of the allied feudal lords first wanted to crush the French Revolution by force,
or, in other words, to crush the people.
For–we should not forget it–all these changes were primarily those that the people wanted and carried out.
Then, in a less remote past, we were force to experience the shame
of the defeat that was organized by incompetent officers
who caused the disaster of the 1940 defeat against the Nazi enemy, who was not only the neighbor that invaded us for the fourth time,
but who was above all the army that carried an ideology and a worldview that was the complete opposite of identity of the French nation,
and always with regard to the same point: the equal rights of human beings.
We could mention the numerous circumstances during which force served ideas
— the worst ideas on some occasions, the best ideas on others.
No one can claim to run our great country without taking into account the fact that it is the fifth economic power in the world...
We are either the fifth or the fourth military power in the world.
Of course, neither our manpower, nor our means, or even our doctrines can be compared to the first and most dangerous power:
the USA and their huge budget of 600 billion dollars for military spendings,
and their capacity to control 80% of the world military spending through NATO and through their regional military alliances.
However, force, and the capacity to use it in retaliation is not insignificant, neither in our history nor in our present.
I share the diagnosis that was presented here by those who spoke before me.
Colonel, you are right in saying that we did not ask you who you want to vote for.
And we will not ask any of the experts on defence issues who they want to vote for.
Because to us, all the French are summoned whatever their opinions when it comes to contribute to the common good
in this supreme moment that we always want to postpone: the moment when we have to defend the fatherland and carry weapons.
You are right, and we will keep on doing so.
I am very proud that military and civil personnel who care about defence issues turn to us,
although they probably never thought about doing it,
but who found something that resonates with what they believe to be right and necessary for the country,
because we are in pursuit of independence, in a situation that more than ever requires independence.
This is what I am about to explain.
Nevertheless, I will not start without thanking you all.
We heard, and you know it by now, that my staff, that is composed of men and women of all ages,
is able to know, to organize, to plan, to disciplin, to treat all the themes that correspond to defence tasks,
be they issues of equipment or industrial strategy,
or the good understanding of the peculiar place of the arms industry within France's industrial process as a whole,
or the political view of the use of force.
Ladies and gentlemen, don't underestimate this capacity.
We have seen where ill-considered or miscalculated decisions could lead us,
or more exactly, decisions that were taken for short-term interests and whose consequences we keep paying the consequences,
because we caused even greater catastrophe than the one we suffered from
—I think about the intervention in Libya, that was the starting point of the spreading of arms and disorder in all Africa.
Moreover, I cannot forget the way the decision was taken and thanks to which arrangements everyone was deceived.
For if the UNO Security Council unanimously decided—including the vote of China and Russia—
that there would indeed be no-fly zones
to prevent Muammar Gaddafi, the dictator, to bomb some of the positions held by the popular uprising,
this decision of the UNO was transformed into something very different,
and understood as a blank check and a right to intervene, to bomb, to destroy and to bring down the regime,
although no political decision for the future was taken, more especially by the Libyan people,
to say nothing of the French people, who supplied the means for this deplorable intervention.
And now, since we know all about this, we need to treat this issue seriously.
To this aim, as far as we are concerned, and for the coherence of our doctrine,
I would like to remind you that the key to the citizens' revolution
is the fact that the people takes the power back in all the domains that concern its collective power.
Of course, the issue of defence is absolutely essential,
and consequently, there is a logical and deep relation between the will to make these issues public
and the will to restore conscription that was suppressed, as you remember.
Since I am old enough to have experience and thanks to the functions I was in charge,
I participated in the debate on the abolition of conscription,
and I was opposed to this abolition, contrary to the party of which I was a member at the time.
I was opposed to it, and I heard arguments that I heard again later,
that said our armies needed professionalization.
There was no need to be a smart cookie to understand where this would lead us.
And, already at the time, I argued that before the abolition of conscription,
the French armies were not composed of amateurs.
On the contrary, they were at their highest professionally speaking,
since they profited from the contribution of the highly educated young people of our country,
whose contribution was priceless, because so much intelligence and skills was gathered in so few places.
Therefore, the plan that we are presenting is built around popular intervention in issues of defence again
—defence theory and the use of the means of defence. But before that, we need to assess the threats we are facing clearly.
This is why I'll start by saying that I will not answer the question on the level of public spending
that is necessary to defence by repeating, as all the parrots do,
that we need a 2% defence budget, although they never say to which aim such a budget would be devoted,
nor for what reason they decided on a 2% budget.
It is not because they have more ideas in this domain than in others,
but it is simply because this figure was decided upon by NATO,
i.e. the military alliance run by North-Americans, who told them we needed to devote 2% of our countries' GDP to defence.
They did so not to define a defence—I mean a threat, sorry—to which this 2% budget would respond,
but they did so to make us buy equipment "off-the-shelf"—to use their elegant formulation—
of which a major part is supposed to come from American equipment, or to be directly related to it,
because, as we know, the liberal North-Americans,
although they are opposed to taxation, to the state, and to more or less everything but trade and arrangements,
have always had a more than keynesian policy,
since it consists in plowing billions and billions of dollars in a single shot into the defence of their country,
with the effect of setting all sorts of industries in motion and, as you know, the arms industry
can perfectly be a driving force for the rest of the industry, since it uses materials of all sorts.
What distingues it from other activities is its purpose,
and the fact that the market, if I may say so, is entirely defined, controled, organized and financed by the state.
This contradicts the opinion of liberals, but it doesn't seem to be a problem for them.
Mr Reagan, who was the onset of the liberal period, did it
by presenting one of the most important military budgets of the post-war years,
and Mr Trump apparently wishes to take up this plan within the frame of his redefinition of USA's geopolitical activities.
Therefore, prior to defining how much we want to spend,
we will start by asking ourselves what the threats the world in general is facing.
I don't want to list all these threats, but I would like to mention some of them.
It is my duty to do so at the moment of making decisions, whatever the domain.
These threats cannot be defined by as wooly concepts as that of "making war on terrorism",
whose major drawback is that it says nothing of terrorists, and whose supreme drawback
is that it says nothing of the link between these terrorists and the material, regional powers that vie with one another
for extremely precise material interests.
For the most part, terrorism is one of the methods of warfare of regional powers that use terrorist attacks
to destabilize countries that they consider to be their enemies, religion being a pretext, and not the reason why they act.
So let's look at what our world is confronted with from above.
Geopolitical disorder is the mother of all wars, that is, the moment when borders are crossed, for a reason or another,
when some nations are forced to move from one place to another, or when the authority of some prevails over the authority of others in one place.
We know, because it is an old anthropological concept, that the first human political community is not family.
It is the human group that exerts its authority on its members and its territory.
As a consequence, when the limits of this authority change, disorder settles down,
and disorder can lead to situations in which issues are settled by violence and force.
Today, we are confronted with a rising tide of disorder that will mechanically come from climate change.
Climate change, by empoverishing certain regions, because of the change in the cycles of rains destroys agriculture,
or because of other reasons that modify the balance of the ecosystem of these regions,
drives immense populations to move from one place to another and to occupy territories,
regardless of the borders they cross or where these borders are, as long as they have somewhere to go.
Moreover, in some regions of the world, since borders were set along ethnic and cultural lines thar are extremely coherent,
it seems natural to these populations to go from one place to another,
because they know they will find family and speak the same language.
Therefore, the borders of dozens of states are swaying.
Dozens of regional alliances, of regional cooperations are swaying or being destroyed by these movements of population.
Let's remember that 80% of te movements of population caused by climate change take place between Southern countries
and that the impact on the so-called Northern countries is but a side effect.
The number of economic refugees that cross the borders of Europe is barely equivalent to the number of people that migrate from Europe to the rest of the world,
because of the absurd policies of the EU that deprive, for other reasons than climate change,
the younger generation and the nations of social perspectives of development.
To make long story short, millions of people—Spaniards, Portugueses, Greeks—are forced to leave Europe.
Even Germans, since 25,000 young Germans leave Germany every year,
but also French people, although we don't know how many, since no one ever tries to establish a figure
for fear of comparing this figure with that of the people that enter our country.
Climate change will therefore cause innumerable upheavals.
And the response to climate change is not a military one,
although the security of borders can quickly lead certain states to resort to force to protect their borders,
since they fear these borders to be jeopardized by these movements of population.
We therefore need preventive measures before any outbreak of catastrophes, measures that are part of a defence policy,
if we accept to consider that, one problem leading to another, and the next to the the one that follows,
as with dominoes, makes a bad harvest in one place have bad consequences in Europe.
The second cause of these troubles and disorders is that production-oriented economy drives us to an ever-increasing
and always irresponsible use of raw materials, and leads some, because of today's extremely sophisticated productions,
to monopolize rare goods—like rare lands for instance—that has some countries compete with one another to control them.
Of course, these goods, these resources and these raw materials are not available everywhere,
so much so that those who have them at their disposal are subject to pressure,
and become the focus of attention that is of course never disinterested,
even though this attention sometimes takes the form of sympathetic struggles for the right of such and such population to self-determination,
populations that are attacked by imperialist powers to cause disorder that destroy nations.
The race for raw materials gets worse
because climate modifies seaways and clears new areas on which no one had any authority until now,
particularly in deep waters, which are the domain of res nullius,
meaning they belong to no one, and as a consequence, first come, first served.
Today, an organization of the exploitation of these areas is beggining to take shape,
but it remains embryonic, and consists in organizing alternate exploitation, as it were.
It is not a right of common goods, especially concerning deep waters.
But before we consider the issue of deep waters, there is the issue of continental plateaus.
France was intelligent enough, under Lionel Jospin's government, to act in time
when the UNO proposed that each country define more precisely the extent of its territory at sea
and be capable of demonstrating the continuity between its continental plateau, and the immediate surrounding of its shores,
and more remote territories: these territories are considered to be exclusive areas.
This enabled our country's surface to increase by 10% without shooting a single bullet in the course of the years 2000.
But you should not forget that there are more tense situations at present.
You heard about ice melt, and you know that the parts of the poles that was until now frozen are decreasing.
You should know that below these areas are great natural resources,
and we find around the North Pole, within the range of missiles, as it were, a competition
between the USA, Russia, Denmark, Sweden and Norway to know who's going to control these territories.
Don't believe that these issues can be settled amicably only,
and this is probably the reason why conscription was restored in one of these countries.
I guarantee you that it has nothing to do with the language barrier.
It is because something is at stake militarily which causes tension to mount: it is the access to raw materials.
Dear friends, if you want to understand the conflicts of the last ten years, follow the oil and gas pipelines,
because wars break out along them.
Since the war in Afghanistan, that didn't have much to do with Twin Towers, but that had much to do with the map of pipelines,
when we asked ourselves if they would go towards China or Europe,
and once the issue was settled, well we packed up our equipment in the disastrous conditions you are aware of,
but we did it, and it is said that the war is over in this country.
Of course, women there enjoy great liberties, and the people has known a development
thanks to the presence of all these armies that we can be proud of,
even though 85% of the money that was plowed into the innumerable contingents in this wretched country
ended up in the coofers of western countries, who had decided on the spendings.
I'm just saying this as a reminder in case you would not know.
Third element: threats.
My first element was cimate change; the second was the pressure exerted on the ecosystem by the production-oriented system,
and the conclusion we should draw is that an ecological policy is a policy of peace,
since it results in bringing this pressure and this predation down on the one hand,
but more importantly because it would enable us to avoid using a number of raw materials.
For instance, if France stopped using fossil energies, in the same way as we will stop using nuclear power,
in order to use 100% renewable energies, we would save half of our foreign trade spendings,
because these spendings are composed of gas and oil.
Thus, an ecological policy is essentially a policy of peace and savings, contrary to what we usually hear.
Last but not least, I'll deal with the various forms of domination in geopolitics.
A lot of experts on these issues are here today, and I advise you not to lecture at them.
However, I am a political leader, and the issue of the balances of power is of particular interest to me,
because after all, politics is all about attempts to settle in a peaceful and orderly way
the balances of power that emerge from contradictory interests that operate within societies.
Geopolitics is deeply deeply influenced by the hazardous situation of the USA.
The USA are the leading power in the world—I said it in the beginning of my speech.
But it is above all the leading monetary power, that issues billions and billions of dollars all over the world,
although they have not started to produce the least gram of matter that corresponds to these sums yet.
These are phoney dollars that are worth whatever you want them to.
The reality is that if the dollar was reduced to its material reality
—as if you all went to the bank to convert your dollars into commodities—
this banknote would not even be worth the paper and the ink used to print it.
Believe me, a $100 banknote is not worth $100,
and this stack of money—that until now flowed freely, since the USA finance their debt by printing money
and that from time to time, more sophisticated and elegant expressions than "printing money" are invented ("easy something...").
They print and print money to buy back their debts. They've been doing this since 2008 at an unbelievably quick pace,
that enabled the USA to edge their way through and to overcome the huge shock of the 2008 crisis,
although their economy became weaker in return.
This fragility is facing peculiar circumstances: as global trade is still made with dollars,
the euro appeared, and it is the currency of the leading economic power
as far as production, exchanges and the amount of money are concerned.
In the mean time, the Chinese currency appeared, almost mechanically.
China became the leading economic power without any imperialist policy,
only because this country was entrusted with the lowcost productions we did not want to take care of
because we did not want to increase salaries in order to buy commodities as cheaply as possible.
Anyway, in the mean time, contrary to what incompetent economists believed, China did not content itself
with producing cheap commodities like sunshades and castanets that would have made us happy.
China produces half of the computers in the world.
As you know, it has the technical capacity to destroy satellites from the Earth,
the capacity to organize human space flights, to go to and to come back from space, to maintain orbital stations etc etc.
In short, China is at the forefront of all these techniques, and this should make us happy,
because it is a good things that Europeans stop lamenting the Chinese people
or collecting the silver paper of chocolate bars as our parents did
when the Chinese people was not capable of providing for their means of subsistance.
It is a good thing if 1,4 billion are autonomous and can produce high-quality goods.
Of course, the conditions in which they produce them are not good, and our circumspection on this point is still entire.
But we the French see China as a partner.
I suggested in my book "Let's get rid of them all" that China should be a privileged partner,
which owed me to be considered a henchman of the Chinese Communist Party—which I'm not—
even though it was the RPR (conservatives) that reached an agreement with the CPR at the time,
and I am delighted to remind you that the main leaders of the French-China associations are to be found in the UMP (conservatives),
and not in the Left Party or in La France Insoumise.
The Chinese are privileged partners for us—I'll talk about Russians later.
But the situation is completely different for North-Americans. Why is that?
China financed the US Treasury by massively buying US bonds,
that would be equivalent to a nuclear bomb if they decided to sell them,
or if they decided to use another currency for trade.
And it happens that China is the most important producer and exporting country in the world,
so it would be normal that their currency be requested and that the countries that do trade with them wish this currency to be convertible.
And step by step, we see that China creates compensation funds that enable it to start organizing the conversion of part of other currencies
into the Chinese national currency, and I am very happy that this compensation fund is located in Paris,
although I am very disappointed that the train from Beijing only stops in Berlin and not in Paris.
But to go back to this strategic moment,
it is clear that the destabilization of the USA results from a mechanical situation,
and not from an agressive attitude on the part of China.
Of course, a great power like China always has an interest in stabilizing its positions
and to have its borders recognised by other countries. I will deal with the issue of borders in a moment.
Some simple minds think that borders are stable and that running along these borders
shouting that they are stable is enough to settle the disputes.
This has not been the case at all during the last thirty years, and this is not about to start,
especially in the case of the islands that either Russia and China, or China and Japan claim to be theirs,
which create tension.
But the structural cause lies in this imbalance,
and the USA, who have focused their efforts on containing the power of the USSR for a long tim
and on destroying it if possible,
and who, out of habit, and through a well-known phenomenon of bureaucratization
that sees their security agencies compete with one another, out of blindness,
and out of an imperialist will to keep controlling European countries,
the USA still designated Russia as their main enemy for a time,
after they tried to purely and simply destroy it, by tarnising its prestige, by insulting and threatening it.
For we should remember that the collapse of the USSR did not lead to negotiations about the reorganization of the old Soviet empire.
It is one of the rare occasions in history in which the dismemberment of an empire was not negotiated.
I'm not saying that the dismemberments of the Austro-Hungarian and the Turkish Empires during the Versailles Treaty were a success,
but we at least remember that if there was a Versailles Treaty, it was because there had been a war,
which had already taken place for problems of borders, of access to natural resources and of competition between imperialisms.
And so, during the period that followed the collapse of the USSR,
we lied to and deceived all those we spoke to.
We had previously told them that NATO would not extend up to the Russian borders but we immediately did the contrary.
We had told them that NATO would extend up to East Germany if Germany wished to reintegrate East Germany to form a single country
—which was not obvious given the history of the 20th century—
and that these countries would not necessarily integrate NATO.
Moreover, everyone thought NATO had become useless since the USSR had disappeared
and since there was no longer any alliance organized by Russia.
Of course, the USA need this alliance—whatever its name.
Anyway, during this period that was full of lies and provocations,
thoughtless acts added to this situation, and it goes on even today.
They consist in constantly recruiting new countries within NATO,
and in moving the borders of NATO always closer to the borders of Russia.
Even today, negotiations with Montenegro are taking place, after so many other countries.
The 10 countries that entered the EU all at once had previously entered NATO before the EU.
We should understand how explosive this is within the game of world powers—for I am talking about the game of world powers!
We're not living in a world where people merely think highly of one another, have good relationships,
drink one another's liquor and eat one another's food.
There are conflicts of interests between powers, and Europe is the place in the world with the greatest number of old scars caused by border issues,
and new wounds often appear on old scars.
We therefore need to be very careful about these issues.
François Hollande's presidency, and Mr Sarkozy's before him,
has been marked by complete blindness and a series of renunciations whose root cause lies in the idea that France
cannot be an independent nation and that it doesn't have any specific role to play in Europe.
Considering the innumerable provocations against Russia,
and more particularly, considering François Hollande's decision—that he took as soon as he was elected—
to take part in the Chicago Summit and to accept the setting of antimissile missiles in Poland,
that were supposed to protect us from so-called Iranian missiles.
Some thought that this location was curious if Iran was the target,
but those who know military affairs perfectly knew that these missiles had only one objective:
to threaten 75% of Russia's defence system.
Russia perfectly understood this, and we can say that this decision was the beginning of an irresponsible escalation
whereas there should have been negotiations.
I tackled the issue of Russia because, as you know, US security agencies have numerous agents of influence at their disposal,
and whoever says that Russians are partners today, whatever their regime,
whoever says that we should talk and negotiate with them—for it is the only solution to avoid a war—
and it's because we are pacifists—or rather in favor of peace, there's a difference—
and because we refuse war that we propose a discussion.
This is why I suggested the holding of a conference on security from the Atlantic to the Urals.
I took up this old expression of General De Gaulle,
because I cannot hide that the construction of our view of national defence and independence owes much to his thinking.
This latter has been assessed after all these years, and it is clear that it remains relevant for the most part,
and fits our pacific view quite naturally.
In these conditions, and given the dangers we are facing,
and as these dangers have increased in Europe by an irresponsible and agressive policy towards Russia,
who naturally responded as agressively,
we see that borders in Europe are called into question.
They have been called into question!
For the decision to make Crimea a part of Ukraine,
a decision that was taken by the USSR's Communist Party's Politburo under the authority of its Secretary-General, Mr Khrushchev,
is the object of absolute vigilance today and is a legal decision in terms of international conventions.
Borders are borders, and they must respect a principle of intangibility.
But of course, when problems arise, discussions must take place by taking into account a second principle
that is at least as important as the first one,
and this principle is the right of nations to self-determination.
For some say that borders must remain intangible—and I absolutely agree—
but we must address this issue. We either talk or go to war.
Talking is a better solution, and the idea of a conference is to me the most realistic solution.
To this aim, do we have to create new tools?
No we don't, because we have the OSCE.
This organization already exists. It was created after the Helsinki Accords
that planned mutual disarmament, nuclear disarmament more especially.
This organization already exists. All we have to do is to make it work again.
But Europeans, because of their marked tendency towards the USA, and because of their hysteric russiophobia,
left this organization aside, and they're wrong.
If we had to run this country, we would make this organization work again,
and France—a military power that is essential in Europe...
For if we are the fifth nuclear power in the world, the situation is completely different from a purely European point of view.
Without a doubt, we are the second nuclear power after Russia,
for I consider Russia as a European nation essentially.
This conference must address the issue of borders,
because this issue exists, especially in the case of Crimea and Ukraine.
The right of nations to self-determination and the issue of borders should lead us to consider the history of Europe less naively
than those who want to lecture at me on this issue.
The borders have moved in Europe.
Should I remind you how the collapse of the former Yugoslavia,
that was not negotiated and abandonned to balances of power, whereas France, under François Mitterand's presidency,
had demanded that prior to recognising the independence of the countries that were about to be created,
these countries should first define what fate and what rights would be granted to their national minorities.
We were waiting, in the same way as we had been waiting during the German reunification,
in the course of which this same François Mitterand, in order to give France's consent,
had demanded that the new eastern border of Germany be the Oder-Neisse line in Pomerania.
After they thought about it for a month, our German neighbors agreed.
Well our reasoning concerning Yugoslavia was the same considering that the Balkans had always been a powder keg.
But far from following us in our wise reasoning, our German neighbors made a different choice
and immediately recognised Croatia and Slovenia.
We should remember that in the course of their mischievous history,
both these nations were Germany's allies during the First and the Second World War.
This was a complete mistake,
because ethnic cleansings immediately began in Croatia, and then in Serbia as a response.
Let me remind you that the first state to be created was Bosnia,
because Bosnia refused to align with both these nations, which ended with a pathetic war,
and finally, borders changed again in Yugoslavia, that was under Mr Milosevic's authority
—yet another nationalist mistake—
when a war broke out and which ended with the creation of Kosovo.
Until recently, Kosovo had not been recognised by a lot of countries, by France more particularly for a long time.
I did not recognise Kosovo either. I never vote for any text that involves Kosovo
because to me, a country was dismembered to create another country
without any respect for international laws,
and without any legal consultation with the countries that were concerned by this issue.
I noted that those who fiercely criticized—and rightfully so—Russia's annexation of Crimea
are as silent as sparrows at dusk when it comes to Kosovo.
But I'll take a less painful example to show you that the issue of borders in Europe is real,
in spite of those who don't want to admit it.
There's at least one very recent case that calls the issue of borders again.
The UK has decided to leave the EU.
The negotiation that the UK has undertaken doesn't matter.
What matters is the decision.
It means that all the parts that form its territory will leave the EU.
However, one of these parts doesn't agree with this decision.
They may be using this situation quite intelligently,
but they say that since they want to remain in the EU, they cannot remain in the UK.
I am talking about Scotland.
But it will be the case of Ireland very soon,
because this time, there are negotiations and endless discussions, it's true,
but there's a war that has been lasting for 50 years, and even more, and this war has been very violent at times.
Southern Ireland doesn't want to have a frontier with Northern Ireland again, and vice versa.
What is the answer of the moral magistery that takes no account of the will of nations to self-determination,
and that contents itself with repeating that borders are intangible?
I repeat that I agree on this point, but to make borders intangible, there must be talks, or it is war.
Now what should our answer to Scotland be?
Should we assist the English armies if England did not approve the Scottish independence?
Will we help England to prevent Ireland from building the nation they have always aspired to?
All this is absurd!
And I'll be kind enough to leave aside the consequences
that would come out of the not so improbable hypothesis of a secession of Flanders from Belgium.
So we the neighbors of Belgium would have nothing to say about this?
Would we content ourselves with saying that we would help an undefined entity to compel the Flemish to give up?
Of course not!
This would lead to a major redistribution and reorganization.
My point is that all the conditions that led to wars in Europe in the past are restored,
and that if we let them worsen by indulging in wishful thinking,
by expressing kind reproofs to one and all by arming to the teeth
and by taking part in every provocation, all we do is increase the dangers of war,
of military escalation and chains of events that no one will be able to control.
So much for Europe.
But France is concerned with other regions of the world.
It is obvious that the USA have a new target.
Taking their weak points into account, that is, the dollar and their relation to the first workshop in the world,
the USA—in a way that is not crazy at all, in the sense of the mental insanity attributed to Mr Trump—
in a very rational way, turn towards their main rivals and try to exert on them the military pressure
that they have always used to defeat those who questionned their supremacy.
Thus, from the point of view of US capitalism's interests,
Mr Trump very rationally turned his missiles towards China.
And...
he uses this situation to tell us Europeans that we must club together to take care of our defence better,
and some naive people in Europe say that since the USA no longer want to take care of us,
we musttake care of ourselves.
Goog, they are right!
But take care of ourselves to do what?
Against whom and with whom?
These are the real questions.
Especially when we systematically and methodically see that in all the official texts,
all the resolutions and every wishful thinking of the European Parliament,
in all the statements of the Council of Ministers of the European Union
as in all the scenarios examined by the EU,
all these texts systematically state that there can be no European defence that is not very tightly linked to NATO.
no one in Europe but your servant says that the future of our defence, of our fatherland,
and maybe, if need be, of the countries that would have an interest in sharing a common defence with us,
no one says that our interest is to withdraw from NATO and from this military spiral. No one!
This includes all my opponents in the current presidential election.
Our programme is the only one that proposes our withdrawal from NATO.
I wouldn't like this proposition to be understood as ideological only, although it is partly ideological.
The French, who have something of Asterix in their nature,
are not very fond of the empires that claim to tell them what to do.
It is in our nature to rebel against any attempt to dominate us.
I think it is a good idea.
For we don't have any interest in contributing to the power of the Empire.
Consequently, our withdrawal from NATO would mean that we disagree with the strategy
that is pitifully called the reviving of the European Defence project.
For the European Defence project as it is described today means war.
More precisely, the European Defence project as it is described in official texts today means war with Russia,
because no one but Russia is defined as our rival in European official texts today,
and this is absurd.
This doesn't mean that we consider the Russian government as a benevolent government that is easy to deal with.
That's not what I'm saying.
Once again, I would like to remind you that General De Gaulle reached an agreement with Staline.
And with Mao.
Consequently, when the time comes, I'll find a way to come to an understanding with Mr Putin
in order to prevent war in EUrope.
This is the way we should tackle these problems.
We cannot be members of NATO because this would amount to adhering to a war in Europe.
However, we have other interests that bring us together with other nations.
First, we have common points with some nations due to the current circumstances
because they are capable of resisting.
I think about the BRICS countries,
an alliance of emerging countries that is hounded by the USA,
militarily , as in the case of Russia and China,
politically, as in the case of the coup d'état in Brazil.
This becomes obvious if we think about the fact that Brzail is a member of the BRICS countries.
And in this context, we the French could become the new asset of a new proposition.
A new military and geopolitical proposition.
An alliance of countries that refuse to align with empires, whatever the empires in question.
An alliance that would give up the use of imperial practices.
An alliance that would focus on highlighting and protecting the rights of nations to self-determination.
This is the doctrine that I propose before you.
Moreover, I think it would be approved of,
by French-speaking countries especially, with whom we have relations
that I would like to integrate in France's strategic vision in the course of the next decades.
The community of French-speaking countries could move on to a political stage in numerous domains
on the condition that we accept the obvious objective of equal relationships between our countries.
This community could get a better name than "Francophonie", like "the common language",
but it is obvious that the "Francophonie" will go through a revolution in the course of the next three decades
because the leading human group that will share our language will be Africa.
And African nations, through their development and the human multitudes that are trying to build a common future,
will fertilize the language itself, its attributes, our common imagination and thinking.
With the objective of a political French-speaking community in mind, we need to prepare
to a relationship in which Africa would be a driving force,
or in which it would at least have specific responsibilities that it does not have yet,
but that Africa will mechanically have in the future.
This situation would be beneficial to France in every possible way,
first because it will put an end to the despicable cancer of corruption
that comes from this group of allied French and African bandits called "France-Africa", which is a disgrace for all of us.
It would also be beneficial to us because it would enable us to completely rethink our relationships.
Of course, there is the European Union. I won't explain to you our Plans A and B again, which is our way of renegotiating,
but the political "Francophonie" is by far the safest way of securing the future of France.
We will soon be the third group of speakers in the world.
This will greatly help us from a cultural, industrial, technical, human and artistic point of view.
I'd like you to think about this, and as far as I'm concerned, I do more than think about it: I make propositions.
In our programme, there is not only what we said about geopolitical and defence issues,
but we also issued a booklet on the theme of the "Francophonie".
I'll get closer to my conclusion
by addressing the questino of our armies more concretely and directly.
Earlier on, I tackled the issue of the threats that influence our thinking
and that force us to think about the future in new conditions.
No generation before us had to take climate change as a geopolitical factor into account. None!
We are the first generation to take it into account.
But in the domain of the military balances of power,
a revolution is taking place, a revolution that is as important as the revolution that occurred when nuclear weapons appeared.
This revolution sort of reduced all the other revolutions to a specific level of use for so-called intermediate conflicts.
We the French, because of our nuclear deterrence doctrine, don't want to hear about intermediate conflicts.
To us, intermediate conflicts don't exist.
We don't want any conflict to appear at all.
Of course, to conclude this subject,
we should undertake initiatives concerning military nuclear power.
It is clear that France must reaffirm its will of a project of denuclearization of the world
that would proceed region after region, because it is the most concrete model.
More particularly, it would be a good thing if the Middle East was denuclearized,
because tensions are extremely high in this region.
But the question will arise in Europe when the time comes.
I am happy that Mr Xi Jinping, the President of the Popular Republic of China, took the initiative
of proposing the holding of a new conference on global denuclearization to the UNO.
And we the French, if I were to run this country,
would become a driving force to achieve the objective of global military denuclearization.
Since nuclear power is the ultimate weapon of France, it is ovious that we would not be the first to start denuclearization,
event though we would contribute to this process from the outset in order to make things clear for everyone.
I'll get to the point now. A revolution just occurred in the art of war,
and we just began to realize that it just started and that it is decisive.
As when nuclear weapons appeared, as when crossbows appeared in the era of swords,
we can say that cyberwarfare made all our material, human and technical systems of military balance of power.
At least for the reason that all our equipment, for the reasons that we mentioned earlier,
is heavily infested with high technologies, which make us depend on cyberlinks.
In these conditions, the task that consists in equipping ourselves with cyberbrigades and cybersquads
and in recruiting all those who have high -level qualifications and skills in this domain
is of the utmost priority.
When the time comes, if we win the elections, France will equip itself with state-of-the-art cyberwarfare weapons.
We could imagine that a certain number of weapons become less necessary than they were before,
and that nonlethal forms of combat—i.e. forms of combat that do not instantly kill fighters—could be deployed.
Since everyone will be stupid enough to interconnect billions of devices,
from fridges to pens and whatnot,
or from your phones to air conditionning and ventilation—everywhere!—
since everyone will make this mistake—and this process is well under way—
this means that everything will be within everyone's reach!
Consequently, we can ask ourselves is certain forms of intervention are now necessary.
For instance, I know that there is a debate on the issue of aircraft carriers.
We have one, and we use it as best we can.
Some say we should have a second aircraft carrier, and we are moving towards this objective.
But would this be our mostr clever move?
I don't think so.
However, since we have the second largest maritime territory in the world,
and for a certain number of medium intensity,
or for military interventions like the one we carried out against maritime pircay,
whose solution is not cyberwarfare,
we need an important naval equipment made of smaller units that would be easier to handle, better armed,
and endowed with equipment that would enable us to quickly intervene where and when we would need to.
As you can see, dear colonel, dear friends, we need to think about the general military doctrine
rather than the priority level of threats only.
We must know the threats we are facing, but we must develop a military doctrine.
How does a balance of power lead to violence in the 21st century?
We must use forms of violence that lessen the impact of violence.
This is the way I see the general outline of the response we gave, in our booklets and in our programme,
to the issues of geopolitics and defence strategy.
Let me repeat it. It is useless to deal with military issues if we do not deal with geopolitics.
Strategy prevails over the budget,
for even if we did not have any budget, we would still have to defend our fatherland.
And this is precisely why we propose the creation of a national guard.
I think the terrorist attacks against our country highlighted the weak points of our country.
These weak points are very hard to protect completely, you all know this.
Of course, we need human intelligence and determined action.
Less conversation and more action will be decisive.
But we all know that a zero risk objective is impossible to achieve.
Consequently, our numer one duty is to stay united.
We should not give the victory to the enemy when he attacks us,
by either holding some of us responsible, or by saying that some of our citizens are their accomplices.
But we should learn from these attacks over the middle and the long run.
There could be other terrorist attacks,
and they could strike installations of a different nature than those that were struck until now.
We therefore need the strength of the people to secure our collective protection.
As Djordje Kuzmanovic said it earlier, we will do this step by step.
I will not say something as ridicule as
stating that if I am elected in May, 800,000 young people will be recruited in our army by September 2018.
First of all, it would be useless.
Secondly, our programme does not plan that every citizen be recruited in the army.
On the contrary, we plan that the citizens set to all sorts of tasks for the human public interest.
Not only for ourselves—I wanted to say this in the intervention of Djordje Kuzmanovic—
but also for our neighbors, to whom we are bound by love and friendship.
I think about the countries of the Mediterranean basin—be they European or Maghrebi—
with whom we often suffer the same catastrophes—ecological catastrophes, wildfires, and other similar problems.
The youth of our countries could join their forces in a common effort,
and contribute with their countries to something that goes beyond their own countries,
such as the public interest of the Mediterraneans to begin with,
and then the public interest of universal humanity.
This is what this force would be.
We will do this step by step. I must admit that I did not understand the propositions of my opponents.
I did not.
I think they will do nothing but disasters, because their thinking is very feeble,
and their will to be independent is close to zero.
How can someone want to cut 120,000 jobs in the public sector,
take off 100 billion euros from the national budget,
and in the mean time re-equip and reorganize armies—or anything else?
All these people are determined to become the henchmen of the USA.
They just think that once they'll take their share of what they call "smart defence",
in which all these nice people take what our good American masters agreed to distibute among them,
the problems would be settled.
I cannot believe that conscription could only take a month, as some of my opponents suggest.
This is not conscription but a summer camp.
I don't think that the young French people want that. We should not try it on them.
You can ask them to give some of their time, you can ask them to make sacrifices,
you can ask them to have will—they are ready—
but I refuse to try it on them by sumonning them to such improbable groupings.
This would be very badly received. As for me, I could of course explain our propositions.
My conclusion will deal with Syria.
I am happy that the proposition I have made from the very beginning was adopted by the UNO.
Unanimously!
So let me tell you that—not you, but my opponents, who have all been doing absurd overstatements in this domain,
and who have made the situation incomprehensible that changes every week,
with good guys becoming bad guys and vice versa,
with those who were our enemies, who cruelly attacked us, becoming moderate rebels.
Well it would have been easier to tackle problems the way I suggested we should tackle them.
Since there is a problem with the transit of raw materials, then we should talk about it
with those who have interests in this matter,
and these are Turkey, Iran, Irak, Syria and other countries
who are involved in this war by hiring various mercenaries.
The only solution is to organize a lasting ceasefire through a universal coalition,
and consequently everyone must participate, there cannot be two coalitions in one place
that share and contend for enemies and allies.
And the only way to solve the political problem of Mr Bachar Al Assad's government is to organize elections.
That's precisely what the UNO resolution says.
I've been mocked for this because organizing elections in a country that went through such a war is difficult.
All right. But what other choice do we have?
None!
None but carrying on with the war forever
until one of the belligerents wins by destroying everyone else!
No one wants this solution.
François Hollande's absurd foreign policy went from failure to failure,
and now we don't even take part in the discussions,
which is ironic for someone who claimed to solve problems with bombings.
The issue of Syria once again poses the question of our autonomy and independence.
I don't need to tell you why, you all have the answer in mind.
Apparently, some things could not be done on our own.
And later, someone reminded us that when one can no longer do something on his own,
it means the politics of others is being reinjected into our decision.
The will to remain independent is therefore a whole.
France's capacity to use its own military means and to equip its allies if need be,
is of vital importance for the fatherland.
I want to denounce and point the finger at those who made the absurd decision of privatizing Nexter.
They did this in absolutely loathsome conditions, since we now share the production of our tanks with a German family,
and since the head office of this company was set in the Netherlands to better evade French and German taxes.
This decision is shocking and unacceptable from start to finish.
We will repeal this decision when the time comes.
Similarly, buying weapons from others countries to equip the French armies—with decisive equipment particularly
starting with the equipment of soldiers—is out of the question.
I know that my political family is reluctant to deal with the issue of the production of arms.
And I share the reasons why they feel reluctant to do this.
But as was shown by Jean-Pierre Brat earlier on,
we are capable of positionning the arms industry within the rest of the industry
in a way that would enable us to not devote the arms industry to the sole production of arms.
On the contrary, it could capitalize on the progress made in such and such domain.
In these conditions, I think that Jean-Pierre Brat's intervention was of the greatest importance.
Primarily because when a union leader speaks, he speaks on behalf of the working class.
It enables us to know what the workers in the arms industry think.
Contrarily to what some might think, the employees of the arms industry are peacful, and sometimes even pacifists,
and they are in favor of peace and disarmament.
And I was happy to hear the account of Jean-Charles Hourcade, that followed Mr Goya's this morning.
I hope you all understood how coherent, how clear and how strong our doctrine is.
We've thought about for a long time,
and when the time comes, I will not only be proud but capable of being Commander-in-Chief
if it is the decision of the sovereign people.
For more infomation >> Motivation For Success: 5 Ways Of Thinking Positive (Highlight) - Duration: 6:55. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét