What is the issue? The Iranians may, in a few years’ time, be able to build several long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. To forestall such a threat, the Americans want to install ten conventional missile interceptors in Poland, to be guided by a radar system built in the Czech Republic. Although apparently justified, the project seems curiously revealing of the inconsistent behaviour of all parties concerned.

Noisy inconsistency in Moscow. Unlike the USSR in the old days, Russia no longer has any enemies. Nobody is threatening it and it is threatening nobody. Yet it still has several thousand nuclear weapons, which are not officially directed at any foreign target. The West let Russia join the G8 group of big powers, even though its GDP ranks only 11th in the world. It also takes part with NATO in the Partnership for Peace. How can the Russian President hope to boost his international credibility by regarding the anti-Iranian shield as a nuclear threat against Russia, and announcing that he would, therefore, target nuclear missiles at… western Europe? How can he not realise that over the next 20 years it is Russia itself that has much to fear from the Muslim extremists it is supporting in Iran and in Syria, while the European Union now guarantees it lasting peace in the West? To be charitable, let us say that Vladimir Putin is one peace behind.

Astonishing inconsistency in Washington. Since the break-up of the USSR, the United States no longer has a Russian policy. Embroiled in a war against Islamist terrorism and against Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear projects, it cannot risk coming into conflict with a natural ally such as Russia should now be. It is not hard to understand why Moscow, in its hypersensitive state, regards the extension of NATO to Russia’s borders, setting up US bases in the Central Asian republics and installing weapons systems of that kind in Central Europe as acts of aggression.

Inconsistency also in Prague and Warsaw. Since 2002, these two countries have chosen to enjoy the budgetary, commercial, monetary and, in addition, political solidarity of their European Union neighbours. What advantages do they expect from negotiating only with the United States, thus creating another bone of contention with Russia, given that they will need the unfailing support of their European neighbours vis à vis Russia on issues of far greater importance to their independence and security, starting with energy?

Silent inconsistency elsewhere in Europe. Although this concerns it directly on its own territory, the European Union is keeping quiet, absentmindedly watching the anti-missile arguments pass by overhead. Would the proposed ‘shield’ also protect Europe? If so, we must have some say on it. If not, we should also have a say because it could, after all, trigger a preventive strike, as is clear from the Russian rhetoric. Geographically, we are much more likely than Washington to be on the receiving end of any irrational action by Moscow or Teheran. What is the point of the European Union if we do not discuss these vital security issues together? What is the point of the Atlantic Alliance if the Americans do not publicly consult all its members before taking a decision of such importance?

After the escalation of inconsistencies, the G8 meeting may offer a useful opportunity for the players in this bad tragi-comedy to climb down and come back to their senses.

During his election campaign, Nicolas Sarkozy announced that he intended to raise real issues, with no taboos, on the international stage, as he managed to do so well in domestic policy. There he has a perfect opportunity to invite our major world partners to reflect on the conditions of peace in the 21st century and on the role the European Union, NATO and the responsible nuclear powers should play to prevent a repeat of some of the most disastrous mistakes of the last century.

Alain Lamassoure, 6 June 2007.

Since the adoption of the five-year term, which means legislative elections are held the day after the presidential elections, the biggest election competition of the Fifth Republic has resembled a rugby match. On 6 May, Nicolas Sarkozy scored a try. He will convert it on 10 and 17 June. There is, however, a major difference compared with the rules of rugby. In rugby, successfully converting a try scores extra points; under our political system, failure to convert means losing all the try points. Victory then turns into a draw and a draw condemns the player to being powerless until the next match – in five years’ time!

There are certainly signs in favour of this second moment of power: after reaching the try-line thanks to a fantastic breakthrough on the right, down the touchline, our player resolutely sprinted towards the centre to score a try between the posts. He was generally said to be a competent candidate, worthy of the position, but his opponents described him as sectarian, brutal, haughty, deaf to advice, clannish, in short, as a source of anxiety. Instead we find quite simply a President shunning the splendours of the Elysée palace to go out and meet people, inviting in the unions even before taking up office, deciding to make all school children read the last letter penned by a communist student who was a hero of the Resistance. He has formed the first French Government founded on equality between men and women, opening up key positions to a young woman of Maghreb origins and to men from the centre and the left. He dined with Airbus workers in Toulouse even before his first Council of Ministers meeting. From day one he reformed some of the most famous departments, creating a ministry of state responsible for reconciling growth with the environment, a totally new ministry responsible for reconciling the necessity of immigration with respect for national identity, a ministry responsible for putting the economy in the service of employment, and a ministry responsible for straightening out all public accounts. He displayed the European stars alongside the tricolour flag on his official photograph and immediately set out on a tour of Europe to propose to our EU partners a way for the Union to escape from the deadlock it has found itself in for the past two years.

Caught on the hop, the opposition parties neither overcame nor even understood the reasons for their defeat. They still have no answers to the fundamental issues Nicolas Sarkozy raised throughout his campaign and is now beginning to tackle, such as how to get the whole of France back to work, how to redirect tens of billions in public aid towards those who really need it, how to face up to globalisation on equal terms, how to relaunch European integration, which has come to a standstill. François Bayrou wanted a government made up of the best talents from the right, the centre and the left. He has got it and his only reaction has been anger that his friends are part of it! As for the Socialist Party, it has been reduced to promising its voters that it will adopt a new programme, choose a new leader and form new alliances… after the next elections. Its leaders’ message comes down to this: ‘Trust us. True, we are as divided as ever, we have lost a match it was impossible to lose, our programme no longer fits today’s world, we no longer have any allies, the ‘people of the left’ have moved to the right, but let us assure you that we will know what we should have done to win after the next defeat.’

As in 1958, after years of crisis and doubt, the French are faced with a historic opportunity: it is in their hands whether they embark immediately on the quiet revolution for which the 85% of voters who went to the polls on 6 May felt such a huge need. Let us not fail to convert the try!

Alain Lamassoure, 2 June 2007.