Appendix to Charles de Gaulle on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Quebec
Press Conference of November 27th, 1967
Charles de Gaulle
Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased to see you regarding subjects that are worthwhile and are present in all our minds. I am ready to answer the questions you would like to ask me. Please go ahead.
Journalist
General, Harold King from Reuters, I wanted to ask you if, given the recent devaluation of the British Pound, you believe that England is now more suited to enter the Common Market than it was six months ago at your last press conference.
Charles de Gaulle
Very well, my dear.
Journalist
Mr. President, Jean [LESSERRE] from Le Figaro. Those who sold British Pounds and those who are now buying gold have lost confidence in the world monetary system, partly as a result of the criticisms you addressed to them.
Journalist
Do you not fear… do you not fear that this loss of confidence could contribute to a global economic crisis that would cause terrible suffering? The Press of Montreal.
Journalist
From the balcony of Montreal City Hall, you uttered four words that went around the world and sparked a wave of passionate and contradictory reactions both in France and throughout Canada. Four months after this event, do you have any additional reflections to add to those you made upon your return from Quebec? And on the other hand, could you tell us what are, in your view, the main objectives of Franco-Quebec cooperation, which has seen accelerated development in recent times?
Journalist
Mr. President, the relationships established since the last legislative elections between the government and parliament, do they, in your opinion, indicate a modification, a profound evolution in the functioning and spirit of the institutions themselves? General, you mentioned the problem of the devaluation of the British Pound and the stalling of England before the Common Market. Could you tell us, amidst all the heated words attributed to you, what importance or value can be attached to this one: England, you said, “I want it naked”?
Journalist
Mr. President…
Charles de Gaulle
It is to you that I will respond first, if you permit. Note that nudity for a beautiful creature is quite natural and for those around it, quite satisfying. But whatever attraction I feel for England, I never said that about it. It is part of those remarks attributed to me, it seems they even make books out of them, which only distantly reflect my thoughts and words. If there are other questions… Please go ahead.
Journalist
Mr. President, Pierre [UNINTELLIGIBLE], director of [UNINTELLIGIBLE] Does it not seem to you that the anticipated evacuation of Mers-el-Kébir constitutes a danger for the security of France? Mr. President, I would like to ask you two small questions.
Journalist
First question: you and several members of your government have spoken about the association of Great Britain with the Common Market as a desirable preamble to its full accession. Can you give us more details about this association? And one more question, please, recently there has been much talk about what many observers have called a political event, I am referring to the book by Mr. Servan-Schreiber "The American Challenge." Two prominent figures in French life, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing and Mr. François Mitterrand, have addressed this question through a radio debate on this American challenge. Given the interest of this question at such an interesting moment for European construction, can you tell us if you have read the book and, if so, what is your opinion on it?
Charles de Gaulle
You know, we do not do literary publicity here.
Journalist
Georges Brusim, Radio Monte-Carlo and La Politique ce matin. General, during your last press conference, you mentioned the great economic changes that France is undergoing. These changes seem to be causing particularly difficult problems today, notably in the agricultural sector, as recent farmer demonstrations appear to testify. Can you tell us how you envision, what solutions you envision for these economic and social problems as a whole and for these agricultural problems in particular? General, war broke out in the Middle East six months ago. It ended immediately, as we know. What do you think of the evolution of the situation in this sector since last June?
Journalist
[UNINTELLIGIBLE] from La Vie française.
Journalist
General, I return to the monetary problems. Certain Anglo-Saxon press organs accuse the French authorities of having contributed to the devaluation of the Pound and subsequently to the turmoil in the gold market. What is the truth?
Journalist
Rodolphe Fischer [UNINTELLIGIBLE] General, during your trip to Poland, you mentioned the great problem of borders several times and outlined the main lines of a settlement within the framework of a Central Europe. Can you give us more precise indications on this policy?
Journalist
Well, General, Hugues Barbe, “Le nouveau journal”. The lowering of customs barriers with the rest of the world soon and the disappearance of customs barriers in Europe pose conditioning problems. Does France seem to you to be in a state to face them?
Journalist
General, Jean-Jacques Schuller, Europe N°1. For some time now, there has been much talk about the post-Gaullist era. The Prime Minister said yesterday that these speculations about the disappearance of General de Gaulle were shocking, but have you yourself never thought about it, General?
Journalist
[UNINTELLIGIBLE], “Les dernières nouvelles d'Alsace”, André Hinnemann, “La tribune des nations”. General, there are questions that come up at each of your press conferences, one of them is the problem of the Vietnam conflict. Can you tell us if you consider that there has been an evolution in the situation around this problem since your last press conference?
Journalist
Ben [UNINTELLIGIBLE] “Dernière Nouvelles de Tel-Aviv”. Mr. President, why do you consider the State of Israel to be the aggressor in the Six-Day War when it was President Nasser who closed the Strait of Tiran?
Charles de Gaulle
Well. So here we have a whole set of subjects that are the main ones we were discussing just now and on which I will endeavor to respond. There is, of course, our economic and social policy, which also has some relation, and I will be led to say, to the international monetary system. The question of the Middle East conflict, of course, there is the great affair of Quebec, there is everything related to England and in particular to the point of view of its candidacy for the Common Market. There is what relates to our institutions, to our regime, to the way it functions and to what it can be in the future. I believe I have not forgotten anything, except that I add what was asked of me regarding the trip to Poland, what was said and what it means. Well, we will respond to these subjects, starting, if you please, with what concerns our economic and social policy, on which I would like the questions that were asked of me to be repeated.
Journalist
General, in your last press conference, you mentioned the profound transformation of the French economy. These transformations seem to be causing particularly acute problems today, notably in the agricultural sector, as recent farmer demonstrations testify. Can you specify the solutions you envision for these economic and social problems as a whole and for the agricultural problem in particular?
Charles de Gaulle
It is an immense transformation that France is currently undergoing, an immense economic and social transformation, as has already been said, it is ordinary. This transformation naturally calls into question all interests, all structures, all habits, and from there inevitably all sorts of reactions, claims, anxieties, fueled of course by all sorts of demagoguery and all the more politicized because it is the State that is leading the evolution. It alone must do so, since it is responsible for the general interest and the destiny of the country, which are the stakes of change. And it alone can do so because it holds the legal, financial, administrative, tariff, diplomatic, etc., means that are necessary. Still, it must apply its action to the essential factors of development, without letting it disperse according to fragmentary and episodic demands. Well, if one wants to get an overall idea of the economic, financial, and social policy of France, one only needs to see on which point and in what way public action has chosen to be exercised.
Here is what it is, I tell you and will repeat, certain of not teaching you anything new. In the industrial sector, the goal to be achieved is that it should be competitive without any reservation within the Common Market and widely on a global scale. Pushing for investments that modernize its equipment, encouraging, aiding these concentrations and these better management methods that give these companies the dimension and power, favoring these exports and these investments abroad that extend its field of action. The fact is that for eight years, French industrial production has increased on average by 5.5% per year and its exports have practically tripled. In the agricultural sector, the goal is to make it one of the modern bases of our economy, determining its farms to live and work no longer as before for the simple subsistence of the families that cultivate them, but rather to provide, sell, and buy precisely the products that can make them profitable.
Encouraging groupings that aim to achieve this, to organize this production, selections, markets, improving structures by acting to enlarge the too small surfaces, to facilitate retirements, conversions and reconversions, mergers, and to reassemble the parcels. The fact is that for eight years, direct budgetary aid to agriculture has been multiplied by ten. One can think that following the rhythm we are following, in ten years, there will remain in France something like one million five hundred thousand agricultural farms that will be, for the most part, profitable, that will employ 10% of our active population instead of 55% at the end of the last century, and that will still produce three times more than at that time. In the sectors of cutting-edge activities that drive and accelerate production and productivity, cutting-edge activities, that is to say research, atom, electronics, aviation, space, television, etc…
It is a fact that the State, for eight years, has made a massive contribution that is this year eight times greater than it was in 1958, and that it intends to increase it in the future, as a priority. Naturally, there is no invention, no calculation, no machine that can make it so that at the base of the human work, there is not the human effort. For the progress of men, men are needed, numerous men because for France, all the possibilities of its territory are not yet and must however be put to use. This is why the increase of our people must be the first of our investments and this is why we are led, incessantly, to take new measures to better aid and to better aid the flourishing of our young French families. It is also necessary that the active population, as much as possible, be distributed among the tasks according to the needs of national activity and that each be fit for their employment. Which implies that professional training be extended and perfected, that of the young, that of adults, including managers and leaders, and it is known that the public actions exercised in this regard employ ten times more means than eight years ago. And it also implies that orientation be decisively organized within national education, which will be done very soon.
It is still necessary that in the great, very considerable and inevitable evolution of all our activities, work and workers find their security despite the changes in employment or placement that are necessary. For this, public aid is now employed in all sorts of forms, either at the scale of the nation, or at the scale of the regions, and it is finally necessary that in companies, the direct participation of personnel in the result, in the capital, and in the responsibilities become one of the basic data of the French economy. A vast social transformation in which the profit-sharing that is now prescribed by law constitutes an important step. Like happiness, progress only exists by comparison. In our industrial era, our country started very late in terms of its development compared to certain others, and for a hundred years it has undergone the worst national ordeals. And in addition, it is rather relatively poorly endowed in terms of natural resources, energy, and raw materials.
And yet the fact is that in the free world, Europe, America, Asia, Africa, we come in third place in terms of the value of our Gross National Product. There is only the United States and Germany ahead of us in this regard. We come in second place after the United States but before Germany, England, Italy, Japan, etc… in terms of the value of this national income per capita, which also gives the measure of our standard of living, which has increased, on average, by 50% over the last eight years. The fact is that the rate of increase of our productivity is annually on average 4.5%, which is less than in Japan and Italy, which is the same as in Germany, but which is more than in the United States and Great Britain. The fact is that apart from America whose population is four times ours, we have more researchers, 40,000, than in any other State, and our achievements in cutting-edge activities: atom, the most advanced reactors, for example, the fast neutron reactor, Caravelle, tomorrow Concorde, Diamant rocket, color television, etc… have a universal notoriety. This is why we envision without alarm the end, the disappearance of all customs barriers within the Common Market. It is true that we find ourselves in the presence of an American takeover of certain of our companies. But we know that this is due in large part, not so much to the organic superiority of the United States, as to the inflation in dollars that they export to others under the cover of the Gold Exchange Standard. It is quite remarkable that the total of the deficits of the American balance of payments over the last eight years is precisely the total of American investments in the countries of Western Europe.
There is obviously an external, artificial, unilateral element that weighs on our national heritage, and it is known that France wishes to put an end to this abuse, in the interest of the entire universe, even in the interest of the United States, for whom the deficits of the balances and inflation are deplorable as they are for everyone. It is possible that the gusts that are currently unleashing, without France being responsible for them, which have swept away the rate of the Pound and which threaten that of the Dollar, will ultimately lead to the reestablishment of the international monetary system based on the immutability, impartiality, universality that are the privileges of gold. There, in their entirety, are our objectives and our results regarding our economic policy and our social progress.
One might say that this is self-satisfaction, no. We are not completely satisfied and moreover for a good reason, it is that the very character of our times is that whatever we do, we can do more and we can do better. But given what we achieve among the nations, we believe that the levers we use are those that suit us best. And these levers are free enterprise, which should not be a bulwark for immobilism, but which should on the contrary be a base for momentum, for risk, for development. International competition which requires perfection and direction, not to mention dirigisme, which chooses the goals and the paths, arranges the means and harmonizes the efforts. This is why the Plan in which the conditions of our progress are periodically set and agreed upon has become for us a capital institution. We will move on to the Middle East, if you please, I was asked questions about the current conflict and I am ready to answer them.
Journalist
General, the war having broken out in the Middle East six months ago, it ended immediately as is known. What do you think, General, of the evolution of the situation in this part of the world since last June?
Journalist
Why do you consider that the State of Israel is the aggressor in the Six-Day War when it was President Nasser who closed the Straits of Tiran?
Charles de Gaulle
The establishment between the two world wars, for we must go back that far, the establishment of a Zionist home in Palestine, and then after the Second World War, the establishment of the State of Israel, raised at the time a certain number of apprehensions. One could indeed wonder, and many did, even among many Jews, whether the implantation of this community on lands that had been acquired under more or less justifiable conditions and in the midst of Arab peoples who were fundamentally hostile to it, would not lead to incessant, interminable frictions and conflicts. And some even feared that the Jews, hitherto dispersed, and who had remained what they had always been, that is, an elite people, sure of themselves and dominating, would, once gathered in the sites of their ancient grandeur, change their very moving wishes of the last nineteen centuries: “Next year in Jerusalem,” into ardent and conquering ambition.
Despite the ebb and flow of malevolence that it provoked, that it more exactly aroused, in certain countries at certain times, a considerable capital of interest and even sympathy had formed in their favor, and it must be said, especially within Christendom. A capital that stemmed from the immense memory of the Testament, nourished by all the sources of a magnificent liturgy, maintained by the commiseration inspired by their ancient misfortune and poeticized among us by the legend of the Wandering Jew, increased by the abominable persecutions they had suffered during the Second World War and augmented, since they had found a homeland, by their constructive works and the courage of their soldiers.
It is for this reason that, independently of the vast support in money, influence, and propaganda that the Israelis received from Jewish circles in America and Europe, many countries, including France, viewed with satisfaction the establishment of their State on the territory that the powers had recognized for them. They desired that Israel would succeed, using a bit of modesty, in finding a peaceful modus vivendi with its neighbors. It must be said that these psychological factors had somewhat changed since 1956. During the Franco-British expedition to Suez, an aggressive and expansionist State of Israel had indeed emerged, and subsequently, the actions it undertook to double its population through the immigration of new elements led one to believe that the territory it had acquired would not suffice for long and that it would be inclined to expand by seizing any opportunity that presented itself.
This is why, moreover, the Fifth Republic had disengaged itself from the special and very close ties that the preceding regime had established with this State, and the Fifth Republic had applied itself, on the contrary, to promoting détente in the Middle East. Of course, we maintained cordial relations with the Israeli government and even supplied it with the armaments it requested for its eventual defense, but at the same time, we offered it advice of moderation. Notably concerning the disputes over the waters of the Jordan, and the periodic skirmishes that opposed the forces of the two sides. Finally, we did not give our approval to its installation in a quarter of Jerusalem that it had seized, and we maintained our embassy in Tel Aviv.
Moreover, once the Algerian affair was settled, we resumed with the Arab peoples of the Orient the same policy of friendship and cooperation that had been, for centuries, that of France in this part of the world, and which reason and sentiment make it necessary to be today one of the fundamental bases of our external action. Of course, we did not let the Arabs ignore the fact that for us, the State of Israel was an accomplished fact and that we would not admit its destruction. So that all things considered, one could imagine that a day would come when our country could directly help in concluding and guaranteeing a real peace in the Orient, provided that no new drama came to tear it apart. Alas! The drama came, it had been prepared by a very grave and constant tension that resulted from the scandalous fate of the refugees in Jordan, and also from a threat of destruction proclaimed against Israel. On May 22, the Aqaba affair, maliciously created by Egypt, was to provide a pretext for those who dreamed of settling scores.
To avoid hostilities, France had, as early as May 24, proposed to the three other great powers to jointly forbid, with it, each of the two parties from starting the combat. On June 2, the French government had officially declared that it would, if necessary, condemn whoever started the action of arms first. And this is what it repeated with complete clarity to all the states concerned. This is what I myself declared on May 24 to Mr. Eban, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel, whom I saw in Paris. If Israel is attacked, I told him then in substance, we will not let it be destroyed, but if you attack, we will condemn your initiative. Certainly, despite the numerical inferiority of your population, given that you are much better organized, much more united, much better armed than the Arabs, I have no doubt that, if necessary, you would achieve military successes. But then, you would find yourselves engaged on the ground, and from an international point of view, in increasing difficulties, all the more so because the war in the Orient cannot fail to increase a deplorable tension in the world and to have very unfortunate consequences for many countries. So much so that it is to you, having become conquerors, that the inconveniences would gradually be attributed.
We know that the voice of France was not heard; Israel, having attacked, seized in six days of combat the objectives it wanted to achieve. Now it is organizing, on the territories it has taken, an occupation that cannot proceed without oppression, repression, expulsion, and if it encounters resistance that it in turn qualifies as terrorism, it is true that the two belligerents are observing, for the moment, in a more or less precarious and irregular manner, the ceasefire prescribed by the United Nations, but it is quite evident that the conflict is only suspended and that it cannot have a solution except through the international route. But a settlement in this route, unless the United Nations tear up their own charter, a settlement must have as its basis the evacuation of the territories that have been taken by force, the end of all belligerence, and the recognition of each of the States in question by all the others. After which, through decisions of the United Nations with the presence and guarantee of their force, it would probably be possible to establish the precise tracing of the borders, the conditions of life and security on both sides, the fate of the refugees and minorities, and the modalities of free navigation for all in the Gulf of Aqaba and in the Suez Canal.
For any settlement, and notably that one, to see the light of day, a settlement to which, moreover, according to France, an international statute for Jerusalem should be added, for such a settlement to be implemented, it would naturally be necessary for it to have the agreement of the great powers, which would ipso facto entail that of the United Nations. And if such an agreement were to see the light of day, France is in advance disposed to lend its political, economic, and military support so that this agreement may be effectively applied. But one does not see how any agreement could be born as long as one of the four major powers does not disengage from the odious war it is waging elsewhere. For everything is interconnected in today's world. Without the drama of Vietnam, the conflict between Israel and the Arabs would not have become what it is. And if peace were to be reborn in Southeast Asia, the Orient would soon find it again, thanks to the general détente that would follow such an event. We will now speak about Quebec. Who asked the question? Please go ahead.
Journalist
Mr. President, last July, from the balcony of Montreal City Hall, you uttered four words that went around the world and sparked a wave of passionate and contradictory reactions, notably in France and throughout Canada. Four months after this event, do you have any additional reflections to add to those you made upon your return from Quebec? Moreover, and above all, could you specify what, in your opinion, are the main objectives of Franco-Quebec cooperation, which has seen accelerated development in recent times?
Charles de Gaulle
There was another question on the subject? It was the French who, more than two and a half centuries ago, in 1763, had discovered, populated, and administered Canada. When, 204 years ago, the royal government, which had suffered a serious setback on the continent and therefore could not support the war against England in America, believed it had to leave, 60,000 French were established in the Saint Lawrence basin. Since then, their community has received only tiny, new elements coming from the French community in the metropolis. And this while an immigration of millions and millions of British, recently relayed by that of new arrivals, Yugoslavs, Mediterraneans, Scandinavians, Jews, Asians, whom the Canadian government in Ottawa has determined to Anglicize, to settle on all the territories. Moreover, the British, who have held power, administration, the army, money, industry, commerce, and higher education in Canada since that time, have long and naturally deployed great efforts, constraints, or seductions to lead the Canadians, the French Canadians, to renounce themselves. And then, on top of that, the enormous expansion of the United States was unleashed, threatening to engulf the economy, character, and language of the country in the American mold.
And as for France, absorbed as it was by multiple continental wars and also by numerous political crises, it lost interest in its abandoned children and maintained only insignificant relations with them. Everything therefore seemed to conspire to have them, in the long run, submerged. Well, by what must be called a miracle of vitality, energy, and fidelity, the fact is that a French nation, a piece of our people, is manifesting itself today in Canada and claims to be recognized and treated as such. The 60,000 French who had remained there in the past have become more than 6 million and they remain as French as ever. In Quebec itself, they are 4.5 million, that is, an immense majority of this vast province. For generations, these peasants of origin, these small people who cultivated the lands, have magnificently multiplied to stand up to the rising tide of invaders and, at the price of unheard-of efforts, around their poor priests, with the motto: “I remember.” They have fought and succeeded in keeping their language, their tradition, their religion, their French solidarity.
But now they are no longer content with this passive defense and, like all sorts of other peoples of the world, they claim to become masters of their destiny. And all the more ardently now that they feel subordinated not only politically but also economically. And indeed, given the rural, isolated, inferior situation in which the French community was relegated, industrialization took place, so to speak, above it, industrialization which, there as elsewhere, dominates modern life. Thus, even in Quebec, the Anglo-Saxons provided the capital, the bosses, the directors, the engineers, trained in their way and for the service of their enterprise, a large part of the active population, in short, disposed of the resources of the country. And this predominance, combined with the qualified but obviously partial action of the federal but obviously partial government of Canada in Ottawa, put the French in an increasingly inferior situation and exposed their language, their substance, their character to growing dangers, which they did not resign themselves to at all.
They resigned themselves all the less because, tardily but vigorously, they were putting themselves in a position to conduct their own development. For example, the youth who come out of their modern university and their new technical school feel perfectly capable of putting into operation the resources, the great resources, of their own country and even, without ceasing to be French, of participating in the discovery and exploitation of all that the rest of Canada contains. All this means that the movement that has seized, the movement of emancipation that has seized the French people of the Atlantic is quite comprehensible and that, also, nothing is more natural than the impulse that drives them to turn towards France. In recent years, a powerful political current has formed in Quebec, varied no doubt in its expressions but unanimous in the will of the French to take their affairs into their own hands.
The fact is there, and of course they consider the mother country not only as a very dear memory but as the Nation whose center, heart, and spirit are the same as theirs and whose new power is particularly apt to contribute to their progress. Whereas inversely, their success could provide France, in terms of its progress, its radiance, its influence, with considerable support. Thus, the fact that the French language should lose or win the battle in Canada will weigh heavily on the struggle that is being waged for it from one end of the world to the other. It is therefore with great joy and great interest that the government of the Republic has welcomed in Paris the government of Quebec in the person of its successive leaders, Mr. Lesage and Mr. Daniel Johnson, and has concluded with them the first agreements of common action. But it was evident that these reunions of France and French Canada had to be acknowledged and celebrated solemnly on the spot. That is why Mr. Daniel Johnson asked me to come and visit Quebec, and that is why I went there last July.
Nothing can give an idea of what the immense wave of French faith and hope was that lifted the entire people of Quebec at the passage of the President of the Republic. From Quebec to Montreal, along the 250 kilometers of the road bordering the Saint Lawrence, which French Canadians call “the King's road” because in the past, for generations, their fathers had hoped that one day a leader of the French State would come to travel it. Millions, millions of men, women, and children had gathered to passionately shout “Long live France,” and these millions were waving hundreds and hundreds of thousands of tricolor flags and Quebec flags, almost to the exclusion of any other emblem. Everywhere I stopped, with the Premier of Quebec and one or another of his colleagues by my side, and welcomed by local elected officials, it was with unanimous enthusiasm that the crowd welcomed the words I addressed to them to express three obvious facts. First, you are French; second, as such, you must be masters of yourselves; and finally, the modern destiny of Quebec, you want it to be yours. After which, everyone sang the Marseillaise with indescribable fervor. In Montreal, the second French city in the world and the end of my journey, the outpouring of liberating passion was such that France had the sacred duty to respond to it without ambiguity and solemnly.
This is what I did by…, by saying, by declaring to the multitude assembled around the city hall that France does not forget its children in Canada, that it loves them, that it intends to support them in their efforts of emancipation and progress, and that in return, it expects them to help it in the world of today and tomorrow. And then I summed it all up by shouting: "Long live free Quebec.” This brought the flame of resolutions to the highest degree. That Quebec should be free is indeed what it is about. At the point where things stand, in the irreversible situation that has been demonstrated, accelerated by the public spirit during my passage, it is evident that the national movement of French Canadians, as well as the balance and peace of all of Canada, and also the relations of our country with the other communities of this vast territory, and even the world conscience that has now been enlightened, all of this requires that the question be resolved. There are two conditions for this: the first implies a complete change in the Canadian structure as it currently results from the act granted a hundred years ago by the Queen of England, which created the federation.
In my opinion, this will inevitably lead to the emergence of Quebec as a sovereign state and master of its national existence, as are so many other peoples and states around the world, which are not as valuable or even as populated as Quebec. Of course, this State of Quebec will freely and equally negotiate with the rest of Canada the terms of their cooperation to master and exploit a very difficult nature over an immense expanse, and also to face the encroachment of the United States. But one does not see how things could turn out otherwise, and moreover, if this is their outcome, it goes without saying that France is entirely ready, with a Canada that takes on this aspect, that takes on this character, to maintain the best possible relations with its whole. And the second condition, for the... on which the solution to this great problem depends, is that the solidarity of the French community on both sides of the Atlantic be organized. In this regard, things are on the right track. And the upcoming arrival, the upcoming meeting in Paris, we hope, of the government of Quebec and the government of the Republic, should give an even stronger impulse to this great French work, essential for our century, to this work in which, moreover, all the French of Canada who do not reside in Quebec and who number one and a half million must participate under conditions to be determined.
I think in particular of these 250,000 Acadians who are established in New Brunswick, and who have also kept for France, for its language, for its soul, a very moving fidelity. At heart, all French, whether from Canada or from France, can say as Paul Valéry wrote, I took note of it, a few days before dying: “It must not,” wrote Paul Valéry, “be that what has been made in so many centuries of research, of misfortune, and of greatness should perish and run such great risk in an epoch where the law of the greatest number dominates.” The fact that there exists a French Canada is a comfort, an invaluable element of hope. This French Canada affirms our presence on the American continent, it demonstrates what can be our vitality, our endurance, our value of work. “It is to it that we must transmit what we have that is most precious, our spiritual wealth. Unfortunately, the other French have only very vague and summary ideas about Canada.” And Paul Valéry concluded: “Here would too easily integrate a critique of our teaching.” Ah! What would he have said about our press if he had lived long enough to read all that so many of our newspapers have published on the occasion of the visit that General de Gaulle made to the French of Canada. Come, come, for them too, for them above all, France must be France. Someone had asked me a question about Poland, about what I had been able to say there. Can it be asked again?
Journalist
General, during your trip to Poland, you mentioned the border issues several times and outlined the main lines of a settlement within the framework of a Central Europe. Could you give us more precise indications on this policy?
Charles de Gaulle
Let me tell you that the trip I made to Poland in September highlighted, in a striking light, two obvious facts. The first is the extraordinary vitality of the Polish people, which is today greater than it has ever been, despite all the ordeals they have endured. And the second is their friendship for France, which has never been greater. While in Polish territory, in a region that in my mind could no longer… cannot be contested and should not be, I observed what was obvious, namely the Polish character of the city where I was. I did so without wanting in any way to disoblige our friends in Germany. To build the Europe that must be built, which includes a West, a center, and an East, everyone must be respected, including the great German people. I do not believe I should say more about this today. And we are approaching, my dear friend, if you would like to say it again, the serious matter, the great matter of England.
Journalist
General, I would like to ask you if, in your opinion, the devaluation of the Pound opens greater perspectives for England's entry into the Common Market?
Charles de Gaulle
Someone also asked me something, but I think that will suffice. Since there have been men and since there have been States, every great international project is shrouded in seductive myths. This is quite natural. Because at the origin of action, there is always inspiration. And so it is with the unity of Europe, oh! how beautiful, how good it would be if it could become a fraternal and organized ensemble where each people finds its prosperity and security. The same is true for the world. How marvelous it would be if all differences of race, language, ideology, wealth, all rivalries, all borders that have always divided the earth disappeared. But what, as sweet as dreams may be, realities are there. And depending on whether one takes them into account or not, politics can be a rather fruitful art or a vain utopia.
Thus, the idea of joining the British Isles to the economic community formed by six continental states arouses everywhere hopes that are ideally very justified. But it is a matter of knowing whether this could actually be done without tearing apart, without breaking what exists. Now, it happens that Great Britain, with an insistence and haste that is truly extraordinary and which recent monetary events somewhat elucidate, has proposed, had proposed the immediate opening of negotiations between itself and the six, with a view to its entry into the Common Market. At the same time, it declared its acceptance of all the provisions governing the community of the Six. This seemed somewhat contradictory with the request for negotiation, for why would one negotiate over clauses that one had already entirely accepted? In fact, we were witnessing the fifth act of a play during which the very diverse behaviors of England towards the Common Market had succeeded one another without seeming to resemble each other.
The first act had been London's refusal to participate in the elaboration of the Treaty of Rome, which across the Channel was thought would amount to nothing. The second act manifested England's deep-seated hostility towards the European community and construction, as soon as it began to take shape. I still hear the summons, I said it not long ago, the summons that my friend Mr. Macmillan, then Prime Minister, addressed to me in Paris in June 1958, comparing the Common Market to the continental blockade and threatening to declare at least a tariff war against it. The third act was a negotiation led in Brussels by Mr. [Mandelin] for a year and a half, a negotiation intended to bind the Community to the conditions of England and terminated when France made its partners observe that it was not about that, but precisely the inverse.
The fourth act, at the beginning of Mr. Wilson's government, was marked by London's disinterest in the Common Market, the maintenance around Great Britain of the six other European States forming the free trade area, and a great effort deployed to strengthen the internal ties of the Commonwealth. And now the fifth act was being played out, for which Great Britain was this time submitting its candidacy, and in order for it to be adopted, it was engaging in all imaginable paths, promises, and pressures. In truth, this attitude is quite easily explained. The English people are no doubt discerning more and more clearly that in the great movement that is sweeping the world, given the enormous power of the United States, the growing power of the Soviet Union, the reemerging power of the continental nations, the new power of China, and considering the increasingly centrifugal orientations that are emerging within the Commonwealth, its structures and habits in its activities, and even its national personality, are now at stake.
And moreover, the serious economic, financial, and monetary difficulties with which it is grappling make it feel this day after day. Hence, deep down, a tendency to discover a framework, even if it is European, that would allow it, that would help it to save, to safeguard its own substance, that would allow it to still play a leading role and that would alleviate part of its burden. There is nothing there that is not salutary for it, and in the long run, there is nothing there that is not satisfying for Europe, provided that the English people, like those with whom it wishes to join, want and know how to constrain themselves to the fundamental changes that would be necessary for it to establish its own equilibrium. For it is a radical modification, a transformation of Great Britain that is required for it to be able to join the continentals. This is evident from a political point of view. But today, speaking only of the economic domain, the report that was addressed on September 29 by the Brussels Commission to the six governments demonstrates with the greatest clarity that the current Common Market is incompatible with the economy as it is in England. Whose chronic deficit in its balance of payments proves the permanent imbalance and which, in terms of production, products, supply sources, credit practices, and labor conditions, includes data that this country could not change without modifying its own nature.
The Common Market is also incompatible with the way the English feed themselves, both through their highly subsidized agricultural products and through cheap food purchased from all over the world, particularly within the Commonwealth. This excludes the possibility that London could ever truly accept the levies provided for by the financial regulations, which would be crushing for it. The Common Market is also incompatible with the restrictions imposed by England on the export of capital, which, on the contrary, circulates freely among the Six. The Common Market is incompatible with the state of the Sterling, as has been highlighted again by the devaluation, as well as the loans that preceded and accompanied it. The state of the Sterling, which, combined with the character of the Pound as an international currency and the enormous external claims that weigh on it, would not allow it to currently be part of the solid, united, and secure society where the Franc, the Mark, the Lira, the Belgian Franc, and the Guilder are united.
Under these conditions, what could be the outcome of what is called the entry of England into the Common Market? And if one wanted to impose it nonetheless, it would obviously be the explosion of a community that has been built and functions according to rules that do not support such a monumental exception. Certainly, and moreover, I must add, it would not support the introduction among its principal members of a State that, precisely by its currency, its economy, and its politics, does not currently belong to the Europe that we have begun to build. To let England in, and consequently, to engage now in a negotiation to that effect, would be, for the Six, given that everyone knows what is at stake, it would be for the Six to give their consent in advance to all the artifices, delays, and pretenses that would tend to conceal the destruction of an edifice that has been built at the cost of so much effort and in the midst of so much hope.
It is true that while recognizing the impossibility of bringing today's England into the Common Market as it exists, one might still want to sacrifice the latter to an agreement with the former. Theoretically, in fact, the economic system currently practiced by the Six is not necessarily the only one that Europe could practice. One could imagine, for example, a free trade area extending to the entire West of the other continent. One could also imagine a kind of multilateral treaty similar to the one that will emerge from the Kennedy Round, regulating the contingents and reciprocal and respectful tariffs among 10, 12, 15 European states. But in either case, it would first be necessary to abolish the Community and disperse its institutions. And I say that France certainly does not demand that. However, if one or another of its partners, as is their right, were to make such a proposal, France would examine it with the other signatories of the Treaty of Rome. But what France cannot do is to currently enter into a negotiation with the British and their associates that would lead to the destruction of the European construction of which it is a part. And moreover, that would not at all be the path that could lead to building a Europe, to Europe building itself and for itself in such a way as not to be dependent on an economic, monetary, political system that is foreign to it.
For Europe to be able to balance the immense power of the United States, it must not at all weaken but rather strengthen the ties and rules of the Community. Certainly, those who, like me, have proven through their actions their attachment and respect for England, strongly wish to see it one day choose and accomplish the immense effort that would transform it. Certainly, to facilitate things for it, France is entirely disposed to enter into some arrangement that, under the name of association or another, would currently favor commercial exchanges between the continentals on one hand, and the British, Scandinavians, and Irish on the other. Certainly, it is not in Paris that one ignores the psychological evolution that seems to be taking shape among our friends across the Channel, or that one is unaware of the merit of certain measures they have already taken and others they plan to take in the direction of equilibrium, their equilibrium within and their independence without. But for the British Isles to truly anchor themselves to the continent, it is still a very vast and very profound mutation that is at stake. Everything therefore depends, not at all on a negotiation that would be for the Six a march towards abandonment, sounding the death knell of their community, but rather on the will and action of the great English people that would make it one of the pillars of European Europe.
Someone asked me what would come after Gaullism. Well, that is where we will end. Everything always has an end and everyone ends. For the moment, that is not the case. In any event, after de Gaulle, it could be this evening or in six months or in a year. It could be in five years since that is the term set by the constitution for the mandate entrusted to me. But, if I wanted to make some laugh or others grumble, I would say that it could still last 10 years, 15 years. Frankly, I do not think so, and regarding what is happening currently, I ask Mr. [Charpie] to repeat the question he asked me, and I will answer it to conclude.
Journalist
Mr. President, do the relations that have been established between the government and the parliament since the last elections reflect, in your opinion, an evolution in the functioning and the very spirit of the institutions?
Charles de Gaulle
After the constitutional stability in which France has been immersed for so long, we must always remember that there have been 17 regimes in the space of 177 years. After the permanent governmental crisis under the parliamentary regime, under the Third Republic from 1920 to 1940, 47 ministries in 20 years, and under the Fourth Republic from 1946 to 1958, 24 ministries in 12 years. After the failure of the parties, spread over the years, despite the often high value of the men, its inability to solve the very great and indeed very difficult problems that our era imposes on us, making our country what was called the sick man of Europe and collapsing in 1940. In the drama of foreign war and disaster, and in 1958 on the brink of civil war and failure, it happened that the French people, on the proposal that I addressed to them, by a massive vote, with an immense majority, endowed the Republic with institutions that are solid and adapted to our times.
And indeed, for almost 10 years, the French Republic, instead of offering as before a permanent spectacle of impotence, of its powers, on the contrary gives an example that is recognized everywhere, of solidity, continuity, efficiency, thanks to which it obtains in the essential domains called progress, independence, peace, results that the world considers to be convincing. Apart from the partisans, no one doubts that if no world drama comes to put everything in question for a few decades, the Fifth Republic will ensure for France the best possible chances of prosperity, power, and influence. And that if the storm were to break out over the earth, it alone would be able to assume the destiny of the country. Now everyone knows that the capital element of these institutions is the attribution to the Head of State, elected by the people, of the means and the charge to represent, to assert, if necessary to impose, above all particular and momentary tendencies, the superior and permanent interest of the Nation.
And everyone knows that in order to ensure that politics conforms to what is essential, it is up to the Head of State to choose the government. It is up to him to determine its composition and to preside over its meetings. This is the essence, and of course, it is this keystone that those who, despite their claims to the contrary, incessantly want to make power the stake of their ambitions and machinations, or the conspirators of the totalitarian enterprise who aim to establish their crushing and dreary dictatorship over France, seek to break. And everyone knows finally that if the President's failure to fulfill his obligations were ever to open a breach for his assailants, the political and social confusion, the economic, financial, and monetary degradation, the international decline that would result from it would inevitably lead to placing France under the control of one or the other of the two main foreign powers. However, one can think that the current situation, in which there are still many biases against the institutions in specialized circles, will not perpetuate itself.
As the Fifth Republic endures and continues to endure, one will see the immense mass of citizens decisively lose interest in the vain quarrel with a regime that they have adopted, to which they are becoming well accustomed, and whose dignity, solidity, and efficiency they appreciate, whatever the current disputes may be. One can even think that, correlatively with this increasingly adopted position by public opinion, any parliamentary situation will decisively accommodate itself to the separation of powers, the effective separation of powers, which the texts and practice do not allow to be violated. In short, a day will doubtless come when our Constitution, with all that it implies, will have become politically like our second nature.
In any case, whatever happens, it is up to the President of the Republic, the Head of State, to maintain the institutions in their spirit and in their terms and to guide the politics of France for as long as he is and where he is alone, the mandate of the entire French people. This is, moreover, I believe, what those who gathered in Lille wanted to manifest ardently and solemnly, while their assembly worked to adapt our concepts and inspirations to the changing conditions. Ladies and Gentlemen, I have finished.