France - Country Watch

Transcription

France
2016 Country Review
http://www.countrywatch.com
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
1
Country Overview
1
Country Overview
2
Key Data
4
France
5
Europe
6
Chapter 2
8
Political Overview
8
History
9
Political Conditions
13
Political Risk Index
122
Political Stability
136
Freedom Rankings
152
Human Rights
164
Government Functions
166
Government Structure
169
Principal Government Officials
176
Leader Biography
178
Leader Biography
178
Foreign Relations
182
National Security
245
Defense Forces
248
Appendix: French Territories and Jurisdiction
249
Chapter 3
265
Economic Overview
265
Economic Overview
266
Nominal GDP and Components
285
Population and GDP Per Capita
287
Real GDP and Inflation
288
Government Spending and Taxation
289
Money Supply, Interest Rates and Unemployment
290
Foreign Trade and the Exchange Rate
291
Data in US Dollars
292
Energy Consumption and Production Standard Units
293
Energy Consumption and Production QUADS
295
World Energy Price Summary
296
CO2 Emissions
297
Agriculture Consumption and Production
298
World Agriculture Pricing Summary
301
Metals Consumption and Production
302
World Metals Pricing Summary
305
Economic Performance Index
306
Chapter 4
318
Investment Overview
318
Foreign Investment Climate
319
Foreign Investment Index
323
Corruption Perceptions Index
336
Competitiveness Ranking
348
Taxation
357
Stock Market
358
Partner Links
358
Chapter 5
360
Social Overview
360
People
361
Human Development Index
363
Life Satisfaction Index
367
Happy Planet Index
378
Status of Women
387
Global Gender Gap Index
389
Culture and Arts
399
Etiquette
406
Travel Information
408
Diseases/Health Data
419
Chapter 6
424
Environmental Overview
424
Environmental Issues
425
Environmental Policy
430
Greenhouse Gas Ranking
432
Global Environmental Snapshot
443
Global Environmental Concepts
454
International Environmental Agreements and Associations
469
Appendices
Bibliography
493
494
France
Chapter 1
Country Overview
France Review 2016
Page 1 of 506 pages
France
Country Overview
FRANCE
Located in Western Europe, France is separated from the British Isles to the north west by the
English Channel. To the north east is Belgium and Luxembourg. To the east is Germany,
Switzerland and Italy. To the south lies the Mediterranean Sea and to the southwest lies Spain. To
France's west is the Bay of Biscay. Other countries bordering France are the micro nation states,
Andorra and Monaco.
France is a key player on the world stage and a country at the political heart of Europe. Although
ultimately a victor in World Wars I and II, France paid a high price in both economic and human
terms during the two world wars. Indeed, France suffered extensive losses in its empire, wealth,
human capital, and rank as a dominant nation-state.
The years that followed saw protracted conflicts culminating in independence for Algeria and most
other French colonies in Africa as well as decolonization in Southeast Asia.
In 1958, the mixed nature of the coalition government structure collapsed as a result of the
tremendous opposing pressures generated by four years of war with Algeria, bringing General de
Gaulle to power again, heading the government to prevent civil war. Marking the beginning of the
Fifth Republic, General de Gaulle became prime minister in June 1958 and was elected president in
December of that year.
Since 1958, France has constructed a hybrid presidential-parliamentary governing system resistant
to the instabilities experienced in earlier more purely parliamentary administrations.
France today is one of the most modern countries in the world and a major player on the global
stage not only as a charter member of the United Nations and membership in many of its
specialized and regional agencies, but also with a permanent member of the United Nations
Security Council.
France is a leader among European nations. The country is a member of the European Union
(EU), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In recent years, its reconciliation and cooperation with Germany
has proved central to the economic integration of Europe, including the introduction of a common
France Review 2016
Page 2 of 506 pages
France
exchange currency, the euro, in January 1999. That being said, French voters rejected the
proposed European Union constitution in a referendum in May 2005, although passage of the
reformist Lisbon Treaty in 2009 brought an end to the bloc's uncertainty.
Today, France is regarded as a highly developed country. It is one of the largest economies in the
world, and is the third largest in the European Union. The country's economic strength lies in its
substantial agricultural resources, a large industrial base, and a highly skilled workforce.
France Review 2016
Page 3 of 506 pages
France
Key Data
Key Data
Region:
Europe
Population:
66300964
Climate:
Generally cool winters and mild summers, but mild winters and hot summers
along the Mediterranean.
Languages:
French; various other languages are also spoken in France
Currency:
1 Euro = 100 cents
Holiday:
Bastille Day is 14 July (1789), Liberation Day/V-E Day is 8 May
Area Total:
547030
Area Land:
545630
Coast Line:
1400
France Review 2016
Page 4 of 506 pages
France
France
Country Map
France Review 2016
Page 5 of 506 pages
France
Europe
Regional Map
France Review 2016
Page 6 of 506 pages
France
France Review 2016
Page 7 of 506 pages
France
Chapter 2
Political Overview
France Review 2016
Page 8 of 506 pages
France
History
Early France
Human habitation in France has existed for at least 90,000 years. Early records suggest that the
Celtic Gauls arrived between 1500 and 500 before the common era (BCE). Following several
centuries of conflict with Rome, the Gauls lost the territory to Julius Caesar in 52 BCE. By the
2nd century of the common era (CE), the region of present-day France had been partly
Christianised. It was in the 5th century that the Franks (presumably the name of the culture from
which the country's name has been derived), as well as other Germanic groups, spread across the
region.
The Middle Ages
Frankish dynasties gained ascendancy soon thereafter and the Middle Ages in France were largely
influenced by a succession of power struggles between warring factions of these dynasties. Of
particular note was the Capetian Dynasty, which was associated with a time of prosperity and
scholarship, even as battles raged with England under the aegis of feudalism. During this period,
France was also ensconced in the holy war of the Roman Catholic Church against non-Christians,
known as the Crusades. The Capetian Dynasty was reaching its demise by the early 15th century
at a time when France was embroiled in the Hundred Years' War with England.
Absolutism
Religious and political persecution filled the 16th century and resulted in the Wars of Religion from
1562 to 1598. Indeed, this period of turmoil threatened the very stability of France itself. The
early 17th century would bring little relief as France was under the control of Cardinal Richelieu. It
was the cardinal who led the foundation for France's absolute monarchy as well as the
consolidation of French power in Europe.
In the mid-17th century (1643), Louis XIV, who was also known as the Sun King, ascended the
throne. He would rule until 1715 -- a period marked by his persecution of the Protestants and the
centralization of the French state. As the 18th century progressed, however, the established order
was found to be out of step with emerging notions of rationalism and the burgeoning Enlightenment
France Review 2016
Page 9 of 506 pages
France
Era. Indeed, both would do much to undermine the clerical order and the aristocracy, which had
held sway over France, and much of Europe, for centuries.
Key Contributors to the French Revolution
The Seven Years' War, in which France was involved from 1756 to 1763, would prove to be
financially burdensome for the monarchy. Indeed, it would later drive public sentiment and cause
the French masses to rail against the privileges of the established order composed of the monarchy,
the nobility, and the clergy. France's involvement with the American War of Independence from
1776 to 1783 would serve to exacerbate the financial woes of the country, while at the same time,
stimulating a philosophical groundswell in favor of libertarian ideals, and in opposition to the
French absolutism. Indeed, these would be the key elements which gave rise to the French
Revolution from 1789 through 1794.
The French Revolution
As reformist sought to change the established order, the monarchy responding by trying to clamp
down on them. In response, French masses took to the streets in protests. On July 14,
1789, a mob of protestors managed to control portions of Paris and proceeded to storm the
Bastille prison. While this famous date is now known as "Bastille Day" in the historical record, the
symbolism of the prison laid in its association with those in power. Storming the Bastille was
intended to be illustrative of the attempt by the masses to end that hold on power.
Immediately following the French Revolution, the country was under the control of moderates who
had been influenced by the ideals of liberal democracy, republicanism, egalitarianism, and notions
of freedom.
Quickly, however, the scenario changed as the more extremist elements rose to the top, largely
through the leadership of Robespierre, Danton, Marat and the Jacobins. It was under their control
that the First Republic was established in 1792. What would later be dubbed the "Reign of Terror"
from 1793 to 1794 followed. The "Reign of Terror" was characterized by dictatorial control and
absolute rule under which persecution and executions became the norm. In this way, the principles
of the French Revolution were largely misplaced through the rampant desire for power.
Napoleon
It was during the period of the very late 18th century that Napoleon Bonaparte gained
ascendancy in France. His military prowess abroad allowed him to assume domestic power at
France Review 2016
Page 10 of 506 pages
France
home in 1799. A number of wars across Europe followed and contributed to French control of
much of the continent. Napoleon's victorious reign ended following a failed military campaign in
Russia in 1812. He was banished to the Mediterranean island of Elba for a short period but
eventually returned and was installed as the Emperor of France for about 100 days. Napoleon's
reign ended when the French were defeated by the English at the Battle of Waterloo. Napoleon
was then exiled to a remote South Atlantic island called Saint Helena. He died there in 1821.
(Note: France's modern legal system finds its roots in the Napoleonic Code, which developed
during the time of Napoleon's rule.)
19th Century France
In the immediate post-Napoleon years, governance in France was largely inefficient. Eventually,
however, the respective roles of the military and the church were notably reduced from the
government, and the separation of church and state was instituted. Long-standing antagonism
between France and England ended via the Entente Cordiale, which effectively closed off a period
of colonial rivalry over African terrain. Then, in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War in
1870, the Third Republic was established.
World War I and II
World War I from 1914 to 1918 brought great casualties of troops and losses of materiel,
especially, in the trench wars of northeastern France. In 1918, an Anglo-French offensive was
able to compel Germany into an armistice. Nevertheless, by the end of the war 1.3 million
(French) people had been killed while more than double that number had been wounded.
Following the Peace Treaty of Versailles in 1918, the next several years between 1920 and 1925
were characterized by postwar reconstruction. Notably, during the 1920s, France also established a
system of border defenses (the Maginot Line). As well, France developed a constellation
of alliances intended to mitigate against the resurgence of German strength.
The years from 1936 to 1938, just prior to the start of World War II in 1939, were associated with
the rise of the Popular Front. France was then defeated rather early in World War II
and occupied by Germany through most of the war years.
It was during this period that the Vichy regime was established as a result of the need for France to
develop a new policy suited to the German victory and occupation. Unfortunately for France, the
Vichy government, which went into force in 1940 and was supposed to have preserved some
semblance of French sovereignty, simply bowed to German interests. As a result, much of
France's resources were plundered while many French people were forced into labor in Germany.
France Review 2016
France
France's resources were plundered while many French people were forced into labor in Germany.
Indeed, the German occupation resulted in the exploitation of one half of France's public sector
revenue.
Meanwhile, General de Gaulle, the undersecretary of war, established a government-in-exile in
London. A similar exiled government was established later in Algiers. These were the years of the
rise of the French Resistance.
Finally, after four years of occupation, suffering and strife, Allied forces landed at Normandy in
1944. Their arrival precipitated a process which would soon lead to France's liberation. In the
aftermath of the war, General de Gaulle established a provisional government from 1944 to
1946 and oversaw purges intended to remove former collaborators of the Germans. De Gaulle
eventually resigned in 1946 and was replaced by Félix Gouin.
Post-War France
France emerged from World War II to face a new constellation of problems. After the
establishment of the country's Fourth Republic via the promulgation of a new constitution, a
parliamentary form of government was also enacted. The parliamentary form of government was
largely characterized by a series of coalitions. But it was the very nature of coalition government
that some believe gave rise to successive cabinet changes as well as disagreement on policies
regarding colonial interests in Indochina and Algeria. Still, this was a period marked by both
economic reconstruction and the genesis of the independence process for several French colonies.
Indeed, in 1954 after the first Indochina War ended, France was defeated at Battle of Dien Bien
Phu in northwestern Vietnam. It was soon thereafter that the Algerian War of Independence
began. Colonial rule ended in a far less bloody manner in Morocco and Tunisia during the late
1950s.
Meanwhile, as France moved out of its colonial identity, it also moved toward integration with the
rest of Europe. In 1951, France entered into a Western European entity called the European Coal
and Steel Community (ECSC). It was this regional boc that eventually led to the formation of the
European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, which was itself the precursor to the European
Union (EU).
The Fifth Republic
Developments in the colonial sphere had an impact on the homefront when in 1958, the
government collapsed as a result of the terribly divisive Algerian issue. A possible coup d'etat led
France Review 2016
France
the French parliament to call on General de Gaulle (who had resigned years earlier) to head a new
government and for the purpose of preventing civil war. As such De Gaulle became prime minister
in June of 1958. He was elected president later that year under a new constitution that inaugurated
the Fifth Republic.
Seven years later, in an occasion marking the first time in the 20th century that the people of
France went to the polls to elect a president by direct ballot, de Gaulle won re-election, defeating
Francois Mitterrand. In April 1969, President de Gaulle's government conducted a national
referendum on the creation of 21 regions with limited political powers. The government's proposals
were defeated, and President de Gaulle subsequently resigned.
Succeeding de Gaulle as president of France were Gaullist Georges Pompidou (1969-1974),
Independent Republican Valery Giscard d'Estaing (1974-1981), Socialist Francois Mitterrand
(1981-1995), and neo-Gaullist Jacques Chirac (elected in spring 1995).
Note on History: In certain entries, open source content from the State Department Background
Notes and Country Guides have been used. A full listing of sources is available in the
Bibliography.
Political Conditions
The Fifth Republic
Charles de Gaulle became prime minister in June 1958 (at the beginning of the Fifth Republic) and
was elected president in December of that year under a new constitution that inaugurated the Fifth
Republic of France. Seven years later, de Gaulle won re-election with a 55 percent share of the
vote, defeating Francois Mitterrand. In April 1969, President de Gaulle's government conducted a
national referendum on the creation of 21 regions with limited political powers. The government's
proposals were defeated, and President de Gaulle subsequently resigned.
As noted in the "History" section of this Country Review, the succession of presidents following de
Gaulle were Gaullist Georges Pompidou (1969-1974), Independent Republican Valery Giscard
d'Estaing (1974-1981), Socialist Francois Mitterrand (1981-1995), and neo-Gaullist Jacques Chirac
(elected in spring 1995).
France Review 2016
France
President Mitterrand's second seven-year term ended in May 1995. During his tenure, he stressed
the importance of European integration and advocated the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty on
European economic and political union, which France's electorate narrowly approved in September
1992.
President Jacques Chirac assumed office May 17, 1995, after a campaign focused on the need to
combat France's stubbornly high unemployment rate. The center of domestic attention soon
shifted, however, to the economic reform and belt-tightening measures required for France to meet
the criteria for Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) of the Maastricht Treaty.
The Mid-Late 1990s
In late 1995, France experienced its worst labor unrest in at least a decade, as employees protested
government cutbacks. On the foreign and security policy front, President Chirac took a more
assertive approach to protecting French peacekeepers in ex-Yugoslavia and helped promote the
peace accords negotiated in Dayton and signed in Paris in December 1995. Despite widespread
condemnation abroad, from the fall of 1995 to early 1996, France conducted several nuclear tests
in French Polynesia.
During his first two years in office, President Chirac's prime minister was Alain Juppe, who served
contemporaneously as leader of Chirac's neo-Gaullist Rally for the Republic Party (RPR). Chirac
and Juppe benefited from a large, though fragmented, majority in the National Assembly (470 out
of 577 seats). Chirac decided to call early elections in April 1997, to take place on May 25 and
June 1, on the assumption that his party and its allies in government would maintain their majority
in the National Assembly. This would have allowed Chirac and Juppe to implement unpopular
policies made necessary by the Maastricht criteria for the single European currency without facing
immediate electoral consequences.
The left wing of French politics, however, led by Socialist Party leader Lionel Jospin -- whom
Chirac defeated in the 1995 presidential election -- won a surprising majority in the National
Assembly (319 out of 577 seats). President Chirac named Jospin prime minister on June 2, and
Jospin formed a government composed primarily of Socialist ministers, along with some ministers
from allied parties of the left, such as the Communists and the Greens. Jospin stated his support
for continued European integration and his intention to keep France on the path toward economic
and monetary union, albeit with greater attention to social concerns.
The period of "cohabitation" (president representing one political party, the prime minister another,
rival party) was the longest lasting in the history of the Fifth Republic. The two previous periods of
cohabitation took place during President Mitterrand's tenure, first from 1986 until 1988 with Prime
France Review 2016
France
Minister Jacques Chirac, and then from 1993 until 1995 with Prime Minister Edouard Balladur.
The French tradition during periods of cohabitation has been for the president to exercise the
primary role in foreign and security policy, with the dominant role in domestic policy falling to the
prime minister and his government. Upon taking office, Prime Minister Jospin stated, however,
that he would not a priori leave any domain exclusively to the president.
Constitutional Change
In a September 2000 national referendum, France amended its constitution, reducing the
president's term in office from seven to five years. As parliament is elected for a maximum fiveyear term, this long-debated reform could synchronize the presidential and parliamentary electoral
cycles and potentially reduce the likelihood of cohabitation (president from one party, prime
minister from another, rival party).
Although President Chirac previously had spoken out against reducing the president's term, in early
June 2000 he endorsed the proposed reform. Prime Minister Jospin had suggested that even
without the president's authorization, he (Jospin) could put the proposal to a parliamentary vote
and then to a national referendum. Jospin's government, with the president's approval, then
proposed the amendment to both the National Assembly and the Senate. After passing both
houses, it was put to a national referendum.
Although the reform has been passed, there is no guarantee that cohabitation will not occur. The
French public could certainly vote for a president and a prime minister from rival parties in
concurrent elections.
Political and Governmental Challenges of "Co-habitation"
The French government's period of cohabitation presented difficulties for President Chirac and
Prime Minister Jospin. In the realm of foreign policy, for instance, Chirac and Jospin clashed over
France's policy toward Israel and Palestine when Jospin referred to the actions of the Islamic
paramilitary organization Hezbollah as "terrorist attacks." Jospin's remarks not only upset
Palestinians, who threw stones at him during a visit to the West Bank, but also drew a sharp
rebuke from Chirac who thought Jospin's remarks would undermine France's "impartiality" in the
Middle East. Chirac and Jospin had also offered competing "visions" of how the European Union
should be constructed in the future.
In terms of domestic public policy, the Jospin government's programs was largely consistent with a
long French tradition of state intervention in the economy, often called "dirigisme." A prime
example is the government's legislation concerning youth employment programs and limiting the
France Review 2016
France
full-time workweek to 35 hours (down from 39 hours) in an attempt to reduce the high
unemployment rate in France. Although the leftist coalition government of Jospin enjoyed general
popularity after the election, its popularity declined as unemployment continued.
France also had to reduce the direct role of the state in certain industries due to competitive
pressures from the international economy. The Jospin government continued the trend of
deregulation and denationalization as seen by the large increase in the value of state-owned
businesses being sold by the Jospin government. Indeed, the Jospin government had overseen the
privatization of more state-owned businesses than any of the previous six governments.
When Jospin took office, unemployment was about 12.6 to 12.7 percent. It remained above 10
percent until April 2000, when it fell to 9.8 percent. (Until April 2000, unemployment in France
had not fallen below the 10 percent mark since late 1991/early 1992). Although the Jospin
government had engaged in some "credit claiming" for the reduced level of unemployment,
observers - especially the opposition right-wing parties - assert that increased employment is a
more a function of the improved performance of the French economy and less a result of the
Jospin government's employment programs. In particular, the reduction of the workweek from 39
to 35 hours has been highly contentious, as employees and employers alike have protested its
implementation.
Since January 2000, the Jospin government faced protests and strikes involving, among others,
truck drivers and other transportation workers; owners of transport companies; health care
workers; parents, students and teachers; civil servants (in particular, tax assessors and collectors);
security guards; airport workers; and postal workers. The 35-hour workweek became a focal point
around which employers and employees alike expressed their dissatisfaction. It also became a
rallying point for expressing other concerns and demands, including more money for the health
care and education systems, safer working conditions, and additional types of compensation for
workers.
The demonstrations involving truck drivers and transport companies received a significant amount
of attention not only in France, but in neighboring states including Great Britain, Spain, Belgium,
Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany and Italy. In brief, the owners of the transport companies
organized roadblocks both within France and at key border crossings to protest the higher costs of
the government-imposed 35-hour workweek. The owners argued that the additional compensation
truckers were demanding would make them unable to compete with their European counterparts.
Truckers organized their own roadblocks to press their demands for increased compensation for
working fewer hours. On average, French truckers work 56 hours per week; working only 35
hours per week meant a significant reduction in income.
The roadblocks adversely affected neighboring states, causing massive traffic jams along major
international trucking routes, at ports, and at other border crossings. Since the protestors typically
France Review 2016
France
refused to allow other transporters to pass, the blockages also severely disrupted non-French
truckers and their respective transport companies. France's European neighbors harshly criticized
these actions and the Jospin government. The European Commission even suggested that legal
action might be taken if the Jospin government failed to devise a way to stop the interference with
cross-border transport. In the face of all this, the Jospin government agreed that truckers could
work a 48-hour week, with provisions for overtime.
While Jospin's popularity had waned and many of his policies drew criticism from both the right
(for not being reformist enough) and the left (for being too market-oriented), the political parties of
the right had not yet been able to take great advantage from Jospin's political predicaments.
Political Scandals
The primary difficulty for the right had been the numerous political scandals that continuously
undermined the public image of the rightist parties. There were widespread allegations that, while
President Jacques Chirac was mayor of Paris, members of his neo-Gaullist Rally for the Republic
(RPR) party were paid for "phantom" city jobs. The French courts have ruled that while in office,
the president may not be investigated or prosecuted. What happens to Chirac once out of office
remains to be seen.
Jean Tiberi, the mayor of Paris just prior to the March 2001 local elections and Chirac's successor,
was alleged to have falsified the RPR's party membership and voting lists. Tiberi was sufficiently
tainted by the scandals to be dropped as the RPR's candidate and replaced by Philippe Seguin.
Tiberi did run on his own, however. The faction- and scandal-ridden right was defeated in the
Parisian elections by the Socialist Bertrand Delanoe, the first time in 24 years that the Gaullists did
not control the French capital. Elsewhere in French local elections, however, the Socialists and
other leftist parties failed to win a substantial number of mayoral races from the rightist political
parties.
While the scandals surrounding the Paris mayoral office continued to hamstring the Gaullists, the
Socialists were plagued by the Elf-Aquitaine affair. Elf-Aquitaine was the giant state-owned and
operated oil firm that seemingly served as the conduit for corrupt, or at least questionable, politicalbusiness decisions under the Socialist presidency of François Mitterrand. In May 2001, Roland
Dumas, the foreign minister under Mitterrand and later the head of the Constitutional Court, was
convicted of corruption charges related to Elf-Aquitaine along with his former mistress, Christine
Deviers-Joncour; a former chairman of Elf-Aquitaine, Loik Le Floch-Prigent; as well as Gilbert
Miara and Alfred Sirven.
Among other details of the trials, the prosecution alleged that Dumas influenced Elf to hire his
mistress Deviers-Joncour as a lobbyist for Elf. Approximately nine million dollars were given to
France Review 2016
France
Deviers-Joncour by Elf, money which allowed Deviers-Joncour to provide Dumas with a luxury
apartment and to buy Dumas numerous expensive gifts, allegedly to influence his decisions that
related to Elf. The charge was that Elf effectively bribed Dumas and others.
The decision of Dumas and the others charged in the Elf affair to appeal the court's decision meant
that other facets of the Elf affair might be brought to court and further threaten the political
standing of the Socialists. In particular, Dumas accused Elisabeth Guigou, a former minister, and
Hubert Vedrine, the current foreign minister, of being participants in illegal payments from ElfAquitaine to the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party under then-Chancellor Helmut
Kohl. According to Dumas, the illegal payments to the CDU were paid to influence a German
decision regarding the Leuna oil refinery in East Germany. If pursued, the Leuna affair would not
only greatly injure the French Socialists but also give rise to a renewed look into the scandals of
Germany under Kohl and the CDU. In addition to the Leuna affair, Dumas, Sirven, and others
want a further investigation into the allegations that Elf lobbied and bribed, Dumas among others,
on behalf of Thomson-CSF, another state-owned company, to influence the sale of six French
frigates to Taiwan.
The Far Right
While the Gaullist parties and the Socialists were engaged in competitive scandals, the parties of the
far right had not managed to take advantage of what seems to be a political opportunity. Founded
by Jean Marie le Pen, the National Front (FN) espouses policies that can be generally characterized
as anti-immigrant, anti-integration, and very nationalistic. Beginning in 1986, the FN began to
garner significant electoral support, but efforts by the other right-wing parties to exclude the FN
from office kept them from winning seats. Nevertheless, the FN grew to be one of the largest
extreme right-wing parties in Western Europe. In regional elections in 1998, several regional leaders
from other right-wing parties were forced to resign or were expelled from their parties because of
perceived cooperation with the FN.
In the run-up to the June 1999 elections to the European Parliament, disputes between Jean Marie
le Pen and the deputy leader of the FN, Bruno Megret, led to the break-up of the FN into two rival
factions. After French courts ruled that le Pen had prior rights to the party's name and resources,
Megret's faction renamed itself the National Movement. The split of the far right contributed to the
decline in public support for the National Front and National Movement in the 1999 European
Parliament elections.
2002 Elections
French politics for much of 2001 were dominated by investigations into political scandals (noted
France Review 2016
France
above), issues at the European level (EU), and by maneuvering for upcoming presidential and
parliamentary elections. The two rounds of the presidential election were scheduled to take place
on April 21 and May 5, 2002. Parliamentary elections were scheduled for June 9 and June 16,
2002. Although 16 candidates had declared their intention to run for president, the initial
expectation was that the contest would be primarily between President Chirac and Prime Minister
Jospin. Central issues in the campaign were the sharp rise in crime rates, the immigration policy,
racism, unemployment, and EU expansion.
Both candidates had considerable hurdles to cross while campaigning. Chirac was dodging
corruption allegations as well as accusations of having enjoyed luxurious holidays funded with
public money. Facing such a decline in public opinion, Chirac began his campaign earlier than
expected in an effort to rally voters. A number of analysts suggested Chirac's nonchalant approach
to his re-election campaign was intended to secure his presidential immunity, which would avert
prosecution on corruption scandals. Should he have lost the race, there would be nothing to protect
him from the courts and the possibility of a prison sentence. Jospin's troubles were less personal
and more political. In the beginning months of 2002, Jospin failed to pass three major bills in the
parliament, an indication of his waning influence. Jospin was also blamed, especially by his right
wing opponents, for the rise in unemployment and crime rates.
In the first round of the French presidential elections, right-wing candidate and head of the National
Front, Jean-Marie Le Pen, unexpectedly acquired sufficient votes to contest current President
Jacques Chirac, in a run-off election. The French reacted to the results of the initial election with
massive anti-Pen protests occurring on an almost daily basis in France as well as in French-allied
European countries. Papers attacked Le Pen and his extremist policies and editorials spoke of April
21 as a day of shame for the French people.
Le Pen had been the leader of the National Front since 1972 and distinguished himself as one of
the country's leading voices from the far right camp for several decades. In 1987, he described the
Holocaust as a "detail of history" and today, his perspective is no less controversial. Under the
aegis of his campaign slogan "First France and the French," he called for the immediate expulsion
of illegal immigrants; severe restrictions of the right to seek asylum; the re-institution of border
control; the establishment of "national preference" -- a system of affirmative action favoring people
of native French origin -- in arenas such as housing, social security, and most significantly, in
employment. He has favored mandatory employment for French natives, making unemployment a
factor for only non-French natives. In response to the rising rate of crime, he has called for the
construction of 200,000 new prison facilities and a referendum on the death penalty, which was
abolished in 1981. In the realm of economics, he has called an end to income tax; a reduction of
taxes on small and medium sized enterprises; the abolition of the inheritance tax; and a reduction
on all variants of public spending. His political proposals have included the renegotiation of all
European treaties, including France's withdrawal from the EU, or what he refers to as "taking
France out of the Europe of Maastricht." In this regard, he has expressed the desire to restore the
France Review 2016
France
French franc. Although a candidate from the right (conservative) wing of the political spectrum,
President Chirac's moderate positions on each of these issues are in clear contrast Le Pen's farright positioning.
Le Pen's supporters have been older and less wealthy French citizens who are concerned
principally about crime, unemployment and immigration. Geographically, they have tended to be
located in parts of southern and eastern France where these three issues are more problematic than
the rest of the country. His supporters have been disproportionately male and unemployed,
however, they have also been quite varied in terms of their political allegiances. Although he
commanded a large segment of the right and center-right voters in addition to the far-right voters,
he was also able to siphon off support from the communist, socialist and far-left protest voting
bloc. This scenario may well signal significant cleavages and associated challenges within the leftist
factions of the French left voting bloc.
As such, the most shocking development in this first round of elections was not so much the
ascendancy of the National Front, but rather, the fall in popular support for the governing Socialist
Party, and the associated fall of the head of the Socialist Party, Lionel Jospin. Just prior to the
election, opinion polls indicated it would be a close race between Chirac and Jospin.
In the aftermath of these developments, Jospin announced his resignation as party leader and was
to be replaced by Socialist Party chairman, Francois Hollande. Hollande's primary priority would
be to revitalize the party before the legislative elections in June. Since 1958 when France adopted
its political paradigm of strong presidential power, the left has been eliminated only once before in a
presidential election.
Meanwhile, President Chirac refused to hold a televised debate with far-right leader, Le Pen, his
only rival in the final round of the presidential election. There was a climate of rising pressure for
Chirac to face off with Le Pen, especially in regard to his rival's most controversial and extremist
policies. Nevertheless, Chirac was steadfast in his declaration that Le Pen's inherently intolerant
views made any semblance of serious debate an impossibility.
Many French and international observers expressed dismay over the alarming number of votes the
French far-right received, however, most pointed to the final round of the election scheduled for
May 5, and they suggest that the voting will not be close -- or in favor of the far-right -- on that
day. Nevertheless, Le Pen's defeat of Socialist candidate, Lionel Jospin, may well be interpreted as
another development a series of far-right election victories, which commenced in Austria a few
years ago with the election of Haider, and spread through Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and
Denmark in more recent times. Indeed, Le Pen acquired 4.8 million votes and just under 17
percent of the total vote, however, most analysts predicted that he could win no more than 20
percent of the total vote in the second round.
France Review 2016
France
Both Le Pen and Chirac expressed confidence that they would be the respective winner on May 5,
2002.
In the second and final rounds of the 2002 presidential elections, the incumbent French President,
Jacques Chirac, claimed victory with 82 percent of the votes cast. His opponent, Jean-Marie Le
Pen, received 18 percent. Though President Chirac claims a landslide defeat over Le Pen, analysts
say that a good percentage of the votes for Chirac were in fact a vote against Le Pen. Indeed,
socialists, other leftists, liberals, environmentalists, fringe groups and conservatives joined forces in
voting for Chirac and against the agenda of Le Pen. Regardless of the motivating factors behind
Chirac's overwhelming victory, it is a fact that his victory was the largest such landslide electoral
win in the history of France's fifth republic. President Chirac chose a senator from the Liberal
Democracy Party, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, to be the new prime minister. Raffarin had been known to
be a center-right moderate and would fill the premiership formerly held by Lionel Jospin. With
Raffarin replacing Jospin, the state of governmental "cohabitation," which ensued under Chirac and
Jospin, was now effectively over.
In May, the Union for Presidential Majority (UPM) -- a pro-Chirac center-right coalition -- was
established. The Socialists replaced Jospin with Francois Hollande as their front man, but although
Hollande has been well regarded, many analysts believed he would be a poor leader for the nowfragmented left.
As the French prepared for the June 2002 election in the 577-seat National Assembly, it became
clear that both the far-right and Socialists were losing ground with the electorate. In the run-up to
the election, the center-right tackled some of the far-right's issues. For example, the center-right
took a hardline stance against crime, a tactic which is thought to have lured support away from the
FN and toward the UMP coalition. Meanwhile, the UMP coalition promised tax cuts, a 35-hour
work-week adjustment and pension reform. The Socialists, which became fragmented after the
loss of Jospin, failed to woo the voters and were facing a significant loss of legislative seats. Polls
immediately prior to the election indicated that the center-right had a possibility of winning a
majority of the votes.
On June 9 and 16, the French electorate went to the polls. The results of the polls gave the centerright an overall majority; they won 44 percent of the vote on the 9th and 53 percent on the 16th.
The Socialists won 36 percent on the 9th and 45.33 percent on the 16th. The National Front won
11 percent on the 9th and 1.89 percent on the 16th. Only 60 percent of the electorate voted.
For the first time in five years President Chirac had control over the government with the centerright controlling the presidency and the parliament. The UMP now had 355 seats in the National
Assembly and other right parties won 44 seats, giving the right a 399-seat majority. The left
suffered considerable losses, altogether retaining only 178 seats. The Socialists moved into the
France Review 2016
France
opposition with 140 seats and the Communists won only 21 seats. Prominent left-wing deputies
lost their legislative seats including Socialist reformer Martine Aubry; Communist Party leader
Robert Hue; Green Party leader Dominique Voynet and the Socialist's Party spokesman Vincent
Peillon. While the left's combined seats have remained sufficient to have its voices heard, the
group has most certainly lost its legislative influence. The National Front gained no seats.
Corsica
During its tenure, the Jospin government faced continued problems on the island of Corsica. The
Mediterranean island is part of French territory, but several separatist groups on the island continue
to fight against French rule. This separatist activity has been taking place sporadically for about 25
years. In February 1998, the prefect of Corsica, Claude Erignac, the highest French official on the
island, was assassinated.
The replacement prefect, Bernard Bonnet, was tasked with restoring law and order. In April 1999,
however, a bungled attempt to burn an illegally built restaurant implicated Bonnet and a special
anti-terrorist police unit on the island. Although Bonnet was arrested and replaced, subsequent
allegations implicated the Jospin government in the arson attempt. The situation on Corsica
remained tense throughout 1999 as separatist attacks increased on the island.
Beginning in December 1999 and continuing throughout 2000 and 2001, Prime Minister Jospin
held talks with Corsica's elected officials. Jospin's willingness to engage in these talks was well
received by many Corsicans; four separatist groups even declared an unconditional ceasefire.
During the talks, the island's officials proposed two different programs for Corsica's future. One,
supported by the separatists, called for full autonomy for the island. The other requested some
devolution of decision-making authority short of complete autonomy, with Corsica remaining under
French rule.
In July 2000, Prime Minister Jospin proposed the devolution of certain powers to the Corsican
assembly. In particular, during a two-year transition period, local elected officials would be given
the authority to legislate in certain areas. In addition, local language programs in primary schools
would be expanded. If all were to go well (i.e., the separatist violence ended), this legislative
authority would be made more permanent. Although Corsica's assembly voted in favor of Prime
Minister Jospin's proposal, various separatist groups believe the reforms are not sufficient.
Particularly vexing to these groups is the right of the French national parliament to veto laws
passed by the Corsican assembly.
This devolution of decision-making authority (called the "Matignon deal") caused severe problems
for Prime Minister Jospin. His interior minister, Jean-Pierre Chevenement, resigned, calling the deal
France Review 2016
France
unconstitutional and a threat to the authority of the (highly centralized) French state. He also
voiced concern that the plan would encourage other separatist groups, such as the Basques and the
Bretons, to press their claims.
The proposal to grant Corsica greater autonomy narrowly passed the French National Assembly in
December 2001. However parliament declared the accord unconstitutional in January 2002.
The defeat of Jospin in the 2002 presidential election was another major setback for the Corsican
separatist movement. Feeling isolated from French politics, Corsican nationalists stated that they
would botcott parliamentary issues.
Basque Separatists
The Basque region is located in southwestern France and northern Spain, bordering the Bay of
Biscay. More than two million Basques reside in three French provinces and four Spanish
provinces. The government of France has been involved in a long-running campaign against
"Euzkadi ta Askatasuna" (Basque Fatherland/Homeland and Freedom or ETA), a separatist
organization founded in 1959 dedicated to promoting Basque independence from France and
Spain. The ETA-led movement for Basque sovereignty is based upon the distinct Basque language
(Euskera) and cultural identity.
Recently, France and Spain have increased their joint efforts to investigate, apprehend, and
prosecute separatists responsible for violent acts. The most recent manifestation of this enhanced
cross-border cooperation was a summit meeting between President Jacques Chirac and Spanish
Prime Minister José María Aznar during which the two leaders discussed, among other items,
continuing efforts to combat Basque separatists. These programs have taken on renewed
importance for the French in the wake of revelations that Breton separatists (in northwestern
France) joined with Basque separatists to steal eight tons of dynamite in September 1999. Since
the horrific events of Sept. 11, 2001 in the United States, with world attention focused on the issue
of terrorism, efforts to deal with all forms of terrorism in Europe has been intensified.
Breton Separatists
French authorities blamed Breton separatists of the "Armee Revolutionnaire Bretonne" (Breton
Revolutionary Army or ARB), the military wing of the "Front de Liberation de la Bretagne"
(Breton Liberation Front or FLB), for a bombing at a McDonald's restaurant in the Brittany region
that killed one employee. A second bomb, also alleged to be the work of the ARB, was located and
defused in Rennes, the Breton capital. It is believed that the dynamite used in the Rennes bomb
was part of that stolen jointly by Breton and Basque separatists. Beginning in the 1960s, the ARB
France Review 2016
France
has carried out approximately 250 acts of violence. As noted above, the French authorities are
increasingly concerned with the Breton separatists' collaboration with Basque separatists.
Developments on the International Front
By early 2003, international politics took center stage as the world grappled with disarming Iraq. In
this regard, as the United States-led movement toward war accelerated, Belgium made a surprise
announcement, which created an unanticipated obstacle for a possible war against Iraq.
Specifically, as tens of thousands of United States troops and aircrafts prepared to operate from
Turkish bases, Belgium announced it was planning to veto a United States request for NATO
military support in regard to Turkey, should a war with Iraq ensue. Indeed, Belgium, aided by
France and Germany, decided to block proposals that would begin the process of deploying
surveillance aircraft, Patriot missiles, as well as anti-chemical and anti-biological warfare protection
teams. The three countries believed that such preparations to defend Turkey would undermine the
diplomatic attempts to avert a war in Iraq. Critics said that the divisions within NATO on the issue
could damage the alliance. Without the involvement of France, the members of a NATO planning
committee eventually agreed to provide defensive support to Turkey.
For its part, however, the United States decried the proposed veto by Belgium, as well as the
proposals by Belgium, France and Germany to block military deployment. United States Secretary
of State Colin Powell called the tactics "inexcusable" and hoped the decision would be reversed.
United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who referred to France and Germany
dismissively as "old Europe," condemned the measures as "a disgrace." In response, the Belgian
Foreign Minister Louis Michel noted that the Europe of democratic, humanist and Enlightenment
values had been insulted by Rumsfeld's "old Europe" reference. As well, criticisms of France were
made by many interest groups in the United States, who claimed that French opposition to a war
on Iraq was motivated by French commercial interests in Iraq. Interestingly, however, France had
actually factored possible military action into its budget. French officials also insisted that their
differences with the United States existed because they believed any war on Iraq should be a last
resort and not a measure of "pre-emptive action."
Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) Mohamed El Baradei delivered a report to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 14,
2003. In response, the French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said that inspections showed
signs of progress and should be allowed to continue. In his response to the United Nations, de
Villepin noted that the inspections process had not been taken to its conclusion, and only when all
options had been exhausted should force be used. Describing France as an "old country" which had
experienced wars and occupation, de Villepin asserted that France "has never ceased to stand
upright in the face of history and before mankind" and that his country wanted resolutely "to act
with all the members of the international community." Following his address, de Villepin's words
France Review 2016
France
elicited a rare thunder of applause from United Nations members.
France, along with Germany, intended to put forth a plan aimed at averting a war with Iraq. The
plan included a provision tripling the number of United Nations weapons inspectors on the ground
in Iraq, the deployment of United Nations peacekeepers, and the establishment of a country-wide
"no fly" zone. Russia, which, in addition to France has veto power within the United Nations
Security Council, stated it would likely support the Franco-German plan. Belgium also expressed
its endorsement of the plan. French President Jacques Chirac called for continued inspections
before pursuing military action, saying that nothing justified a war at this time; he also noted that
the region did not need another war. The French ambassador to the United States Jean David
Lafitte acknowledged that while progress had been slow in bringing Iraq into compliance with
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, maintenance of an inspections regime could
produce the desired result of disarmament. France also continued to express its opposition to
preparations for NATO's defense of Turkey, noting that such measures undermine the chance of a
peaceful resolution to the Iraq situation.
Following another presentation by Blix and El Baradei at the Security Council, it appeared that
there had been further progress made on the disarmament process; the United Kingdom and the
United States, however, took a dimmer view of things. As such, the United Kingdom began
developing a second resolution aimed at achieving either immediate disarmament or military action
against Iraq.
Diplomatic negotiations surrounding the Iraq crisis finally collapsed in March 2003. Efforts to
modify elements of the draft of a second United Nations Security Council Resolution failed,
despite the efforts by the United Kingdom to create an agreement that would satisfy the misgivings
of most of the non-permanent Security Council members. France and Russia decried the
provisions for an automatic trigger resulting in war if Iraq failed to accomplish various benchmarks
in disarmament. Both France and Russia earlier warned that they would veto any resolution
containing such language.
Following a meeting in the Azores between the leaders of the United Kingdom, the United States
and Spain (the sponsors of the existing United Nations Resolution 1441), Blair announced there
would be a final round of informal discussions to try to resolve the impasse between the three allies
and the rest of the Security Council. A deadline of March 17, 2003, was given to the rest of the
Security Council to decide on a possible course of action, before military force against Iraq would
be exerted. France's Ambassador to the United Nations Jean Marc de la Sabliere responded that in
one-on-one discussions with council members, it was clearly apparent that most did not endorse a
use of force against Iraq at that time.
With no progress made in regard to a second resolution, or in building consensus among the
Security Council by the March 17 deadline, the United States, the United Kingdom and Spain
France Review 2016
France
reversed their original commitment to seek a vote on its passage in the Security Council and,
instead withdrew the draft resolution. In a media conference a week prior, United States President
George W. Bush had promised a vote in the Security Council, whether or not the resolution
passed, stating that council members would have to "show their cards." Now, in an effort to pursue
military action without overt illegality, which the defeat of a second resolution would surely signify,
the allies took cover under the original United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which
augured "serious consequences" for Iraqi non-compliance. Experts on international jurisprudence,
however, were still not at all agreed on this reasoning.
Several hours after the withdrawal of the draft resolution, United Nations Secretary General Kofi
Annan announced the withdrawal of United Nations personnel, including weapons inspectors, from
Baghdad in preparation for an imminent war against Iraq.
In an interview on United States television, French President Jacques Chirac said, "We should
pursue diplomacy until we've come to a dead end." France also called for an emergency meeting at
the United Nations to discuss peaceful disarmament. Also on United States television, United
States Vice President Dick Cheney said it was difficult to take the French position seriously. In
spite of Cheney's disparagement of France, many other countries expressed great dismay at the
prospects of a war against Iraq. Nevertheless, military action against Iraq was launched by United
States and United Kingdom forces.
At a European Union summit meeting in Brussels, Belgium, French President Jacques Chirac
stated he would not support a post-war Iraq administered by the United States and the United
Kingdom. He stressed that such an arrangement would legitimize the military intervention into Iraq
and would justify the war after the fact. Instead, the French president encouraged the creation of a
United Nations-administered civil authority. Although the French government stressed a desire to
continue bilateral relations with the United States and the United Kingdom, French officials were
clear about these objections. Indeed, following cordial talks with the United Kingdom Prime
Minister Tony Blair aimed at resolving differences, Chirac again made it clear that he believed
military action against Iraq to be outside the parameters of international jurisprudence.
In April 2003, the government of France called for a suspension of sanctions against Iraq, noting
that the economic development of Iraq was a vital aspect of the country's immediate reconstruction
efforts. Still, the French did not call for the lifting of sanctions entirely and also expressed the view
that the United Nations "oil for food" program remain under the aegis of the international body,
albeit with adjustments that correspond with Iraq's current needs.
The French ambassador to the United Nations, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, offered an arrangement
by which sanctions would be suspended and the "oil for food" program would be controlled by the
United Nations, but gradually phased out. The French ambassador also indicated that the sanctions
were linked to the past United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraqi disarmament.
France Review 2016
France
Although he did not explicitly suggest that sanctions regime would be ended in lieu of the return of
weapons inspectors from the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission
(UNMOVIC), he noted that the final lifting of sanctions would be essentially signal that result.
The Domestic Agenda in 2003
Benefiting from a "Baghdad bounce," French President Jacques Chirac enjoyed high approval
ratings -- in excess of 80 percent -- from a populace largely opposed to the war in Iraq. Referred to
as the global "peace warrior," Chirac was to now deal with the demands of domestic policy in
France. At home, he managed to cut income tax by 6 percent and promised to cut taxes by a third
over the course of five years. Hea also increased police budgets in an attempt to deal with crime.
Still, France has been suffering from a public deficit that exceeds the provisions of European Union
regulations and unemployment was around 9.3 percent in 2003. The issues of the economy and
associated social reform, therefore, have been the paramount concerns that affect Chirac's
presidency. Indeed, the French government would have to reform government programs by
changing the country's pension system and cutting jobs.
Heading the French government was Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, whom many believe
unsuited to administering such sweeping -- and painful -- reforms in a palatable manner. As such,
there has been speculation that Raffarin might be replaced by a more charismatic figure.
Regardless, by backing these reforms, Chirac placed himself in a position of vulnerability, and the
success of his presidency would rest upon the way in which the government advanced its domestic
agenda.
In May 2003, a massive strike by air traffic controllers in France grounded 80 percent of flights in
and out of the country. The strike created a scenario of chaos for travelers. In addition to the air
traffic strike, channel ports were blocked by other strikers such as teachers, postal workers,
telecommunications employees, bus and train drivers as well as hospital staff. The mass strike was
orchestrated to protest proposed pension reforms (noted above). The changes would result in
workers having to contribute to state funds for a longer period before being able to draw a full
pension, thus delaying the retirements of some people. The government insisted that the reforms
would be vital in dealing with the already-strained pension system and one of France's three major
unions has already accepted the terms. The two other major unions, however, promised further
action. Nevertheless, by mid-2003, the pension reforms were approved by parliament.
In December 2003, President Chirac announced that the wearing of overt symbols of religious
allegiance would be banned from state schools. The ban was issued in defense of France's
secularism. The ban was scheduled to begin at the start of the next academic year. Overt symbols
of religious allegiance included the Jewish skullcap, the Islamic headscarf, the Sikh turban and
Christian crucifixes of excessive size.
France Review 2016
France
In response, hundreds of people protested in the French capital city of Paris. Many of the
protestors included young women, many with their heads covered with the Islamic headscarf. In
order to register their protest, while at the same time showing their allegiance to France, they
marched behind a banner which read "Beloved France, respect our freedom." In similar fashion,
other protestors carried the red white and blue tricolor, the national flag of the French republic.
Polls in France showed that up to 66 percent of people in France supported the ban. Opinion
within the Islamic community was more divided. Still, one poll showed that as many as 50 percent
of Islamic women supported the ban.
The debate caused great tension in France and has brought to light one of the main fault-lines in
French society. At issue is the matter of the integration of France's Islamic community.
Developments in 2004
In March 2004, President Jacques Chirac's center-right governing UMP party was trounced in
France's regional elections. Election results showed that the Socialists and other allied parties won
50 percent of the votes cast and 20 of the 22 regions. Chirac's party garnered 36.9 percent of the
votes cast but won only the Alsace region. The far-right National Front won 13 percent of the
vote.
The result was a blow to Chirac because it reflected popular discontent regarding the country's
unemployment rate and economic woes, as well as the government's terribly unpopular public
sector reforms. Consequently, political experts have said that Chirac will have to respond to the
election results with sweeping changes or risk long-term political damage. A cabinet reshuffle was
expected and perhaps even the dismissal of the unpopular Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin.
Indeed, although Raffarin resigned his post, he was very quickly re-appointed. Given the election
results and the associated symbolism, it was possible that the reform program might be curtailed.
Nevertheless, Prime Minister Raffarin said it was important to carry out the structural reforms,
albeit in a fair manner.
In June 2004, early indications from the European Union (EU) parliamentary elections suggested
there had been a record low turnout of only 44.2 percent for the EU. Indications also suggested
that turnout among the 10 new member states was even lower than the overall average at only 26
percent. Insofar as the actual election results were concerned, gains for opposition parties across
Europe appeared to be on the horizon. Results in France showed President Jacques Chirac's
Union for the Popular Movement appearing to take 16.6 percent of the vote behind the Socialist
Party, which garnered close to 29 percent.
France Review 2016
France
In July 2004, Franco-Israeli relations became strained. In response to a wave of anti-Semitic
attacks in France, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urged French Jews to leave France and
emigrate to Israel. Indeed, Sharon's implicit statement about the precarious situation of Jews in
France might well have held merit since government statistics indicated that 510 acts or threats
occurred in the first part of 2004 alone. Still, observers noted that Sharon had his own interest in
promoting immigration to Israel as demographic trends are not favorable to the maintenance of a
truly democratic Jewish state without increasing numbers of Jews living there. Within two
decades, Jews may well become a minority in Israel.
At home in France, the public eschewed Sharon's call noting that the government had actively
sought to punish anti-Semitic attacks with severity. Meanwhile, French officials responded with
outrage to Sharon's statements, and the foreign ministry of France demanded an explanation
for the Israeli leader's blunt commentary. As well, the president of the National Assembly, JeanLouis Debre, caustically noted that the Israeli leader had "missed a good opportunity to keep
quiet."
Developments in 2005
In the first part of 2005, attention in France was focused on the scheduled May 29,
2005, referendum on the European constitution. Regarding this matter, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre
Raffarin in April 2005 asked the French people to seriously consider the impact of the result of the
referendum. He noted, "... If we smash what the previous generations have built, we have to wait
much more time to rebuild the new Europe." His words came in the aftermath of a series of
opinion polls suggesting that over half of those polled intended to vote "no" in the referendum.
The prime minister warned that the path of isolation would be akin to the path of dependence for
France. Later President Chirac also delivered an address calling for support for the European
constitution.
Meanwhile, Norbert Walter, the chief economist at Deutsche Bank, told the Financial Times
Deutschland that French rejection could well trigger a currency crisis in the new member states via
currency attacks. On the domestic front, at the start of 2005, French trade unions were ensconced
in public sector strikes aimed at protesting against proposed labor, pension and welfare reforms.
Then, in a much-anticipated national referendum in late May 2005, French voters overwhelmingly
rejected the proposed constitution of the European Union. Turnout was high with estimates
ranging from 70 percent to 80 percent and of those who voted, approximately 55 percent voted
"Non" or "No" in opposition to the draft constitution, while 45 percent voted "Oui" or "Yes" in
favor of it. Supporters of the "No" campaign cheered loudly when exit polls were released after the
voting ended. Those who supported the "No" campaign included communists, a variety of leftwing groups, socialists not aligned with those in parliament, as well as those associated with rightFrance Review 2016
France
wing parties and groups.
French President Jacques Chirac, who had campaigned vigorously for a "Yes" result, said that he
accepted the "sovereign decision" of the voters. At the same time, however, he acknowledged that
the result of the referendum meant that it would be difficult to defend French interests within
Europe. Acknowledging that the referendum result had simultaneously registered the frustrations of
the French voting public, the French leader in a televised address said that he would soon make
key decisions about the future of his center-right party in office. Some interpreted his remarks as
intimations about a prospective cabinet reshuffle.
Meanwhile, a strong supporter of the "No" campaign, right-wing leader Philippe de Villiers, called
for the resignation of President Chirac or the dissolution of parliament. On the other hand,
opposition Socialist leader Francois Hollande, who had given his support to the "Yes" campaign,
expressed regret about the referendum's outcome. For his part, the blame was to be squarely
placed in the court of Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. As such, he noted that the rejection of
the European constitution was a rejection of the French government, led by Raffarin. Indeed, as
the reality of the "No" vote was digested by France and the world, it became increasingly clear that
Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin’s resignation was imminent. Chirac then accepted Raffarin’s
resignation in order to signal a shift in policy.
Attention soon moved toward Raffarin’s possible successor. Among the possible contenders were
Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie, Health Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy, Social Cohesion
Minister Jean-Louis Borloo and National Assembly speaker Jean-Louis Debre.
One key candidate was Finance Minister Nicolas Sarkozy -- perhaps the most popular right-wing
politician in France and one who hoped to replace Chirac as president in 2007. Economic and
business experts expressed support for Sarkozy as they saw him as the only candidate who could
possibly bring about reform to France's social welfare state and deal with the problem of high
unemployment. However, the fact remained that the "No" vote on the European constitution was,
in its own symbolic way, a rejection of free-market reforms, which had been endorsed by Sarkozy
himself. Thus, for the leftist supporters of the “No” campaign, Sarkozy could hardly be viewed as
a desirable choice.
Another choice for the new head of government was Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin -- a
Chirac loyalist. During his stint as Foreign Minister, de Villepin garnered positive media attention
for his eloquent defense of France's stance in the run up to the Iraq war. His limited experience on
domestic affairs, however, was regarded with skepticism. Nevertheless, in the end it was the
career diplomat, Dominique de Villepin, who was chosen to navigate the tough waters of French
domestic politics.
French domestic interests aside, the referendum result in France was expected to reverberate
France Review 2016
France
across the European Union. Because the constitution must be ratified by all the member states of
the European Union, rejection by one of the European Union's founders placed the future of the
treaty very much in doubt.
Understanding the degree of damage that might result from the French referendum, French Foreign
Minister Michel Barmier expressed disappointment but called on other European Union member
states to go forward with their own procedures for constitutional ratification. In some cases, such
as France, the constitution was to be ratified by referendum. In the case of countries such as
Germany, ratification was achieved via parliamentary vote.
Note: The draft of the constitution of the European Union had been crafted in 2004 following
extensive -- and often difficult -- negotiations among European governments. At the time of
writing, nine countries had formally endorsed the European constitution: Austria, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. Fifteen countries had yet to
formally endorse the constitution, with eight of these countries scheduled to go the route of
ratification by referendum.
Foreign affairs were on the political agenda in 2005 when Paris had significantly increased its
military presence in Central Asia and Afghanistan. In August 2005, French fighters began flying
sorties under United States command in Afghanistan. Also in August 2005, France directed the
international naval effort to patrol the seas between the Horn of Africa and Pakistan, which were
believed to be a terrorist enclave. In this way, despite its continued opposition to the United Statesled war in Iraq, France continued to demonstrate its commitment to fighting the global war against
terrorism.
Urban Unrest
President Jacques Chirac said on Nov. 5, 2005 that France would prevail despite the spate of
rioting that had taken over several predominantly African and Arab suburban communities, called
"banlieues," around Paris. The urban unrest, which began on Oct. 27, 2005, was sparked by the
deaths of two young men who were accidentally electrocuted at an electricity sub-station in the
Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois while reportedly fleeing police. The unrest spread over the
course of a week throughout 300 towns across France including Orleans, Rennes, Drancy, Grigny,
Corbeil-Essonnes, Nantes, Strasbourg, Toulouse, and Evreux in Normandy.
In his remarks, President Chirac warned that perpetrators over the unrest would be faced with
arrest, trials and punishment. He said that there was an "absolute priority" to re-establish order and
noted that “the law must have the last word." He went on to state that France was determined "to
be stronger than those who want to sow violence or fear, and they will be arrested, judged and
punished." At the same time, he also noted that respect, justice and equal opportunity should be
France Review 2016
France
available to all people, and were the necessary ingredients to bring about a positive end to the civil
chaos that was plaguing France.
President Chirac had been under pressure, particularly from opposition politicians, for failing to
intervene publicly. The president's remarks came on the heels of crisis talks with key ministers,
including Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin and Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, at the
presidential palace in Paris. The details of security meetings have not typically been public,
however, the very announcement of such a meeting delivered a message to the public about the
seriousness of the situation on the ground. In the backdrop of these talks were discussions
between government officials and community leaders in the hopes of trying to re-establish order
and stability. To this end, curfews were put into effect.
By Nov. 6, 2005, the rioting, which had been ongoing for about a week, resulted in over 1,400
cars and several shops being burned. In one case, a school was petrol-bombed. Clashes between
police and youth were also reported -- in some cases with the youth carrying baseball bats as
weapons. In at least one case, rioters actually shot at police, wounding around ten policemen. One
elderly man was beaten to death on Nov. 7, 2005 while trying to put out a fire in a trash can. Over
400 people were arrested included several Arab and African youth, however, the intensifying level
of violence offered little hope about the possibility of a quick resolution.
Nevertheless, a week later the implementation of curfews appeared to be having an effect on
quelling the riots. As such, the French cabinet was expected to request that parliament extend the
state of emergency for an additional three months. In so doing, the state of emergency would
allow local councils to continue to impose curfews and also to curtail congregation of groups.
Parliamentary approval for the extension was expected to pass since the riots had dissipated to only
a few fractious incidences.
Also contributing to the lessened level of chaos was the declaration of a "fatwa" or religious edict
against the rioting by one of the largest Islamic groups in France, the Union of French Islamic
Organizations (UOIF). The "fatwa" read as follows: "It is formally forbidden to any Muslim
seeking divine grace and satisfaction to participate in any action that blindly hits private or public
property or could constitute an attack on someone's life."
One key figure increasingly mentioned at the center of the ongoing turmoil was Interior Minister
Nicolas Sarkozy (discussed as a main contender for the French leadership in the future). For
several protestors, and even among the leftist opposition, Sarkozy's hardline conservative stance
has come to represent some of the ideological fault lines at play. Sarkozy suggested that Islamist
militants manipulated immigrant youth to act violently against the French state. Although Sarkozy
was not alone in making such allegations – indeed, this possibility has been articulated by several
officials as a serious and legitimate concern -- it was the minister's pejorative reference to bands of
youth as "rabble" that was regarded as incendiary. Certainly, it only served to exacerbate outrage
France Review 2016
France
among immigrant factions. As such, rightly or wrongly, Sarkozy was identified both by the
protestors themselves and by left-wing opposition, as being elemental to the uprising around Paris
and beyond. The result, ironic or otherwise, was that as the rioting continued, and as the
authorities became increasingly frustrated by the intensification of the urban unrest, the more
strongly Sarkozy was backed by Chirac and the government.
While clearly the riots were spurred by the unfortunate deaths of the two young people at the
electrical sub-station, that incident sparked an outburst of anger among disaffected immigrant
youths in housing projects across the country. At the broader level, this state of turmoil in France
appears to have illuminated the cleavages between mainstream French society and immigrant
communities (mostly Muslims of African and Middle Eastern descent), across the country's
changing post-colonial landscape. Critics have suggested that not only have the cultural tensions
been laid bare, but they have simultaneously revealed the failure of the French political and social
model of integration.
At issue has been the uncovering of a societal and cultural dichotomy that goes well beyond the
usual explanation about socio-economic "haves" and "have nots.” Clearly the level of poverty,
evidenced in broken down housing and poorly-performing schools, and the disproportionately high
rates of unemployment among these immigrant groups, have together contributed to a sense
of frustration and disaffectation -- the very roots of rebellion. In addition to these socioeconomic conditions, many immigrants from Africa and the Middle East living in these housing
projects have also had to deal with a broader sense of identic alienation and marginalization from
mainstream French society.
Whereas their parents' generation had to balance the cultural divide between their colonized
homelands and their adopted homeland in France, these young people in the "banlieues" have been
born into a society where they exist in a vortex of systematic exclusion. While they have sought to
be full members of French society, working and making lives for themselves, they have had to
confront ethnic discrimination. This kind of discrimination has contributed to submerged feelings
of despair and outrage against macro-society, and by extension, it has created a hospitable
landscape for crime and lawlessness. Indeed, the youth of these immigrant communities appear to
have suffered from a significant degree of harassment by French police. It is a paradigm that has
only served to stultify poor relations between these immigrant communities and security forces. As
a result, seemingly manageable altercations function as catalysts for massive outbreaks of violence,
as evidenced by the events of November 2005.
Clearly, the elixir for this malady would be greater social, political and economic participation.
Whereas several other Western countries can point to some media personalities or politicians from
minority communities, the French media and governmental landscapes are strangely bereft of this
type of diversity. As regards security concerns, French police and other security forces tend to be
strictly "native" terrain. One concrete way of accomplishing this objective of more harmonious
France Review 2016
France
participation might be to recruit more police from ethnic communities. In other Western countries
with multicultural populations, such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada,
members of diverse security forces work to forge improved relations between minority
communities and mainstream society, while the very act of minority recruitment tends to advance
better social integration. It is a model that might well be adopted in France, where notions of
"egalite" (equality) rooted in the French Revolution, have obfuscated the realities of deeply
enduring discrimination, ostracism and social exclusion. Most significant, however, is the matter
of increased economic participation. In addition to much-needed economic and labor reforms,
France will also have to resolve the problem of a minority underclass suffering from mass
unemployment. The controversial nature of American-style "affirmative action" programs
notwithstanding, it has become increasingly clear that France must implement institutional changes
in order to offer these disenfranchised youth increased employment options. A sense of economic
futility can only serve to foment further volatility in the "banlieues."
Despite the stern words he uttered follwing security talks, reports suggested that President Chirac
privately acknowledged these realities. Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga, who met on Nov. 7,
2005 with the French president, said that he "deplored the fact that in these neighborhoods there is
a ghettoization of youths of African or North African origin." She also said that Chirac recognized
"the incapacity of French society to fully accept them." The Latvian leader also noted that Chirac
had explained that unemployment in some suburban areas was as high as 40 percent -- four times
higher than the national rate of just under 10 percent. Another key concern centered on the fact
that because many of the disaffected immigrant communities have been Muslim, and because of
the lack of economic opportunities and cultural enfranchisement, religious extremism could well be
exploited France is home to about 5 million Muslims -- the largest Islamic population in Western
Europe. Perhaps in a gesture oriented toward addressing these grave concerns, Prime Minister
Dominique de Villepin was scheduled to announce community development measures for the
neighborhoods at stake.
In February 2006, after Ilan Halimi was kidnapped and murdered by an extortion gang, tens of
thousands of people marched through the streets of Paris to protest against racism and antiSemitism. Among those participating in the rally were members of the government and opposition,
Jewish advocacy groups, other religious communities, and various anti-racism institutions.
The leader of the extortion gang thought to be responsible for the crimes, Youssef Fofana, was
arrested in Cote d'Ivoire. He left France shortly after Halimi's body was found and admitted to
being involved with the kidnapping but not the murder. Fofana reportedly said that Halimi was
selected as a target because he was Jewish and, therefore, he was believed to be rich.
Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy confirmed that the combination of prejudice and greed appeared
to have been the motive behind the kidnapping and murder. He said, "They [abductors] believed...
that Jews have money. That's called anti-Semitism." Roger Cukierman, the head of the
France Review 2016
France
Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France noted that it was important for French
society to "realize that little anti-Semitic and racist prejudices can have terrible consequences."
In March 2006, parliamentary approval for a controversial labor law led to passionate protests
across France, as well as a steadfast vow by Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin to move
forward with the law nonetheless. As the author of the legislation, he emphatically stated the law
would be applied, however, he also promised to do so in consultation with labor groups.
At issue was legislation for the First Employment Contract (CPE). The CPE is a two-year contract
by which employers can hire and terminate young workers under the age of 26 years old on an atwill basis. By virtue of its flexibility, the government hopes the new law will result in the hiring of
more young people. France, like several other European countries, has been criticized by some
business interests as being beholden to oppressive labor laws, which constrain employers from
easily terminating workers. As a result, employers have been reticent to hire young people. Such
unwillingness has often contributed to high rates of unemployment, particularly among the younger
population.
Explaining the necessity for such a measure, Prime Minister de Villepin pointed to France's high
rate of youth unemployment -- 50 percent in some city suburbs -- and linked it with the cause of
the riots in 2005, which spread across the country. In this regard, the prime minister said, "We had
a crisis in the suburbs a few months ago, people forget that. What do we do, just fold our arms as
we have done for years? Or tackle the problem?" Answering his own question, he noted, "I will not
accept leaving these youths on the side of the road."
Critics of the legislation said the CPE would undermine traditional labor provisions. They also
cautioned that it could be manipulated by some employers to make it even more difficult for young
people to find permanent employment. Joined by students, such critics launched protests at several
universities across France. One of the most notable of the demonstrations was a three-day sit-in at
Paris's Sorbonne. It came to an end when police stormed the main building while wielding batons
and dispersing tear gas. The incident did little to lessen the already-elevated level of tension.
Instead, students accused the police of violence while student union leaders warned that the use of
force would only result in conflict. In the port of Marseille, demonstrators set afire the entrance to
the town hall. One officer was injured in the incident and six young people were arrested.
The mass public outcry continued for several days with up to 1.5 million participants at
demonstrations and rallies across the country. The French Interior Ministry offered a far more
modest estimate of the turnout at about half a million people. Approximately 160 people were
arrested on March 18, 2006 when violence broke out in the streets of Paris as some young
protestors smashed store windows and set cars ablaze. The police used tear gas and water cannons
to take control of the situation. Until then, the demonstrations had been predominantly peaceful.
France Review 2016
France
Meanwhile, French trade unionists threatened to call a general strike if the government did not
withdraw the labor law on March 20, 2006. Rene Valadon of the Workers' Force Union confirmed
that the demand was an ultimatum, to which the president and prime minister would have to
respond. The head of General Labor Confederation (CGT), Bernard Thibault, warned that if there
was no response to their ultimatum, union leaders would propose general work stoppages. He
remarked on the feasibility of such a move saying, "Conditions are such that it should be a
success."
For its part, the government gave few indications of how it would respond to the latest
developments. An official, Jean-Francois Cope, expressed the view that the government favored
dialogue, but had little to say about the chances of the law being revoked. He noted, "Beyond the
passions of the moment, don't we all have an interest in a dialogue? The door is open."
For Prime Minister de Villepin, the protests gained momentum and, as such, evolved into a crisis of
sorts. The urban unrest among immigrant youth in French suburbs of late 2005 was something of a
precursor to the scenario in the first part of 2006, impacting French youth on a mass national level.
The ferocity of the activism by young people in France to the proposed legislation suggested a high
level of anxiety among the younger generation regarding the impact of globalization.
While protests among indigenous and peasant movements have occurred across the globe -- from
Bolivia to the Niger Delta -- in response to such phenomenon, anti-establishment demonstrations in
a developed country like France may be a symbol of more widespread malcontent with the current
neo-liberal economic order on a global scale. In the modern era, states and markets have
determined political and economic policies that eventually impact the public. Increasingly,
however, there has been a growing number of stake holders determined to function in a directly
participatory manner -- either calling for change or demanding that their interests be protected.
Whether or not such actions were simply indicative of a passing phase, or if they were illustrative
of an actual movement intent upon challenging the policies and structures of the traditional political
and economic power brokers, was yet to be determined.
Active opposition to the controversial proposed labor law was ongoing in the last week of March
2006. The demonstrations and strikes were widely attended by students, unions and left-wing
political actvivists. On March 28, 2006, protestors numbering around 1 million took to the streets
to show opposition to the CPE. Those present called for a strike a week later aimed at scrapping
the proposed law entirely.
Meanwhile, following an affirmative ruling by the top French court on the legality of the new
youth employment legislation, President Jacques Chirac said he would sign it into law, albeit with
modifications to its two most controversial clauses. Presumably in response to criticism of the
legislation, which would make it easier for employers to fire young employees within the first two
years of employment, Chirac said his amendments would shorten the timeline to one year, and
France Review 2016
France
would require employers to give a reason for dismissal. It was not known whether or not Chirac's
apparent willingness to modify the law would assuage protestors participating in ongoing mass
demonstrations.
For his part, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin called on President Chirac to back the law
despite its unpopularity. He noted that such systemic changes were vital in a country whose youth
population has been plagued by unemployment levels in excess of 20 percent -- in fact, as high as
40 percent among immigrant youth living in the recently-volatile suburbs. Indeed, the prime
minister threatened to resign if the president failed to stand by the legislation. Still, Prime Minister
Dominique de Villepin also stated he was willing to entertain the possibility of modifications to the
terms of employment contracts addressed in the legislation.
In early April 2006, French unions, leftists and young people numbering in the millions continued
to rally against the controversial youth labor law. Leaders of the various groups opposing the
legislation set a deadline for mid-April 2006, at the start of the parliament's spring recess, calling for
the law's withdrawal at that time. They warned that they would commence a new round of
opposition action if the deadline was not met. President Chirac's proposal to amend the law,
which went into force on April 2, 2006, by shortening the probationary employment period from
two years to one year, and mandating the submission of a reason for dismissal, were deemed
unacceptable by trade unions. Talks between the government and the unions were set to begin on
April 5, 2006 with parliamentary head, Bernard Accoyer, saying, ""We'll be ready ... to receive the
unions, to listen to them. There won't be any limits to the talks."
By April 10, 2006, the French government announced that it was dispensing with the First
Employment Contract in response to the strong popular opposition, which had spurred heated and
sometimes violent protests in the streets. Instead, President Chirac said that other
measures intended to deal with high rates of youth unemployment, such as state support for
businesses that hire young people, would be implemented. On April 12, 2006, France's parliament
passed a bill intended to replace the defunct youth employment contract. Deputies in the National
Assembly passed the bill by 151 votes to 93. Both student and union leaders reacted to the news
by claiming victory for their side, but they did not state whether or not they would continue with
ongoing protest activity.
For his part, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who had championed the contract provision,
explained his rationale for supporting it saying, "I wanted to act very quickly because the dramatic
situation and the despair of a number of young people warranted it. This was not understood by
everyone, I'm sorry to say." Prime Minister de Villepin, who has been viewed as a possible
successor to President Chirac, suffered declining approval ratings since the controversial legislation
was first advanced.
Update on urban unrest: In October 2006, violence returned to the impoverished surburban areas
France Review 2016
France
of France, essentially coinciding with the one year anniversary of mass riots. A year later, the
conditions that sparked the unrest in the first place -- lack of economic opportunities,
unprecedented unemployment, and high degree of discrimination plaguing France's non-native
population -- appeared largely unchanged. Most of the attacks in 2006 involved the burning of
public buses, although clashes with police resulted in a number of injuries. In Marseilles, the
situation took a particularly ominous turn when a group of young people opened the doors of a bus
and flung a flammable liquid inside. The attack resulted in a female traveler suffering serious
burns.
Political Machinations
In the aftermath of two successive domestic crises -- the riots in the immigrant suburbs in late 2005
and then the mass demonstrations in opposition to controversial labor legislation in early 2006 -Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin's government was expected to face political challenges.
In May 2006, this inevitability came in the form of a non-confidence motion, which the prime
minister was able to handily survive. The outcome of the non-confidence vote resulted in only 190
parliamentarians backing the motion -- substantially less than the 289 needed to pass in the
parliament. The result was not altogether surprising since parliament has been dominated by
members of the ruling center-right coalition -- the Union for Presidential Majority (UPM). It was
the third such vote since Prime Minister De Villepin took office.
The non-confidence motion had been tabled by the Socialists and involved charges that Prime
Minister De Villepin had orchestrated a smear campaign against Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy,
a political rival and possible presidential contender. The matter involved a scandal that came to be
known as the "Clearstream affair." In essence, it was alleged that De Villepin, at the urging of
President Jacques Chirac, ordered a covert investigation into suspicions that Sarkozy held an
account with a finance house, Clearstream, through which defense contract payments were being
laundered. The investigation concluded that the accusations were without merit.
With the Clearstream affair in the background of the political landscape, Socialist leader Francois
Hollande addressed parliamentarians prior to the non-confidence vote and asserted that the
leadership of the country was not functioning so much as a government but, rather, as a
battlefield. In response, Prime Minister De Villepin launched a counter-attack in which he accused
his opponents of cultivating a climate of untruth. He also asserted that his government would
remain on course by spurring economic growth and dealing with unemployment.
Presidential Elections of 2007
France Review 2016
France
The fall of 2006 was marked by attention to the forthcoming presidential election, scheduled for
2007.
Moderate Prime Minister De Villepin, once thought to be the natural successor to President Chirac,
had endured the challenges of the riots in the French suburbs as well as the Clearstream scandal.
As such, his candidacy seemed at risk. Former Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, who lost his bid for
the presidency in 2002, had been expected to contest the upcoming presidential race. However, in
September 2006, he said that he was withdrawing from the political contest. Meanwhile, these
developments seemed to propel the hard-line Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, more into the
limelight as one of the main presidential contenders.
On the other hand, buoyed by grassroots support and the climate of change sweeping the country,
former Environment Minister Segolene Royal declared her candidacy for the nomination of the
opposition Socialist Party. Polls showed Royal leading other presidential contenders with up to
thirty percentage points despite critics' claims that she had less political experience when compared
with her male rivals.
Indeed, the Socialist primary in November 2006 saw Royal win an overwhelming victory with 60.6
percent of the vote share among party members. Her rivals, former Finance Minister Dominique
Strauss-Kahn and former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius, received substantially less support -20.8 percent and 18.5 percent respectively. Still, in the aftermath of the vote, both noted that with
Royal's clear victory, it was time to close ranks and set their sights on winning the presidential
elections in the next year. For her part, Royal said, "To be chosen in this way is something
extraordinary." She went on to note, "I think that tonight this legitimacy has been given to me and
for this I want to thank party members from the bottom of my heart."
Attention then shifted to the question of who the other main candidates in the presidential race
might be. To this end, Sarkozy, the head of the Union for a Popular Movement, was chosen in
January by the center-right to be its candidate for the upcoming presidential elections. His
selection was not surprising, nor was the fact that he garnered 98 percent support by members in
an uncontested race. On the other hand, it was noteworthy that less than 70 percent of the party's
membership cast a vote at all.
The decision by over 30 percent of party members -- including several senior figures -- to refrain
from the vote in an uncontested race exposed the deep divisions within the center-right. That
climate of acrimony was not helped by the fact that President Chirac did not attend a rally in Paris
to mark the occasion. Although Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin made a short appearance,
he did not stay for the acceptance speech and had refrained from the vote.
During his acceptance speech to the party faithful, Sarkozy said that he would work to unite the
party. He asserted that the center-right's Gaullist traditions would be maintained. To this end, he
France Review 2016
France
said, "I want every one of you to be convinced of my fierce determination and of the infinite
energy that I will put into making sure that the cause that unites us is triumphant." However, he
made clear that the country was in a crisis that would require strong leadership and intense reform.
At the start of 2007, it was unclear as to whether or not Sarkozy's bid for the presidency would be
successful. His hard-line approaches to crime and immigration, as well as his austere economic
initiatives, were not expected to help him gain support from the center and the left. Meanwhile,
the popular Socialist candidate, Segolene Royal, would be helped by the fact that her rivals in the
Socialist primary contest were committed to helping her win the presidential elections. For a short
period, the state of unity within the political left wing -- in stark contrast with the climate contrast
of division on the right -- appeared to work in Royal's favor. But such trends were easily subject
to change. As discussed below, the entrance of a notable centrist candidate, Francois Bayrou, into
the race, in addition to some stumbles by Royal, gave many of her supporters pause.
April 2007 marked the start of the presidential campaign in France, which would ultimately lead to
the first round of the presidential elections on April 22, 2007. As no candidate was expected to
seize 50 percent or more in the first round, a second round was expected to be held among the two
top vote getters in May 2007.
As center-right President Jacques Chirac prepared to step down from office, Interior Minister
Nicolas Sarkozy was hoping to succeed him as the next successful candidate from the outgoing
leader's ruling coalition -- the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP). Sarkozy, as noted
above, gained notoriety following his hard-line stance during the period of unrest that ensued at the
close of 2005 in the immigrant-dominated suburbs of France. Sarkozy -- the son of a Hungarian
father and a French mother of Greek-Jewish heritage -- studied law unlike so many of France's
elite political leaders who attended L'Ecole Nationale d'Administration.
Socialist candidate, Royal, was hoping to return the left to power in the country's top spot, and
attempted to rally the left via her expression of Socialist values, albeit with a twist. She presented
herself as more of a modern Socialist with an economic orientation akin to Tony Blair or Bill
Clinton's "third way" path toward growth and low unemployment. She also embraced the notion
of patriotism, usually claimed by the right. Although an exceedingly popular figure on the French
political scene, a series of blunders began to plague Royal, thus causing great anxiety among the
Socialists about the viability of their candidate, ultimately spurring questions about her command of
the key issues of the day.
Meanwhile, centrist candidate Francois Bayrou entered the race and became something of a spoiler
candidate, peeling off support from the moderate factions of the UPM, while simultaneously
attracting disillusioned voters who were originally looking towards Royal as their anti-establishment
choice.
France Review 2016
France
A fourth candidate who commanded recognition was far-right figure, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who
managed to make it to the second round against Chirac in the 2002 election cycle, as noted
above. Le Pen was expected to reliably command the far-right voting bloc within France once
again.
A fifth candidate was leftist farmer, Jose Bove, who called for the left wing to become more
radicalized, and who had taken a strong anti-globalization position.
There were seven other candidates contesting the presidential election in addition to the
aforementioned five aspirants to the Office of the President. All 12 contenders were entitled to
equal time -- 45 minutes in total -- to broadcast their campaign messages via the media. As well,
election posters were erected outside polling station across the country.
Polling data at the start of the election campaign showed that Sarkozy was now holding a
comfortable lead. For her part, Royal had slipped in the standings and was now somewhat behind
in second place. Earlier, Royal's overwhelming advantage had slipped away, so that both of
these two candidates had been running competitively against one another. With the election
campaign underway, Bayrou was gaining strength and moved in third place, albeit not far behind
Royal. Le Pen was in fourth place.
At the same time, a survey published in the newspaper, Le Parisien, found that a full 42 percent of
voters were undecided, thus indicating that each candidate had substantial room to move up or
down in the polls. The degree of indecision -- 10 percentage points higher than during the
campaign season of the previous election -- was not reflective of the public's lack of interest in the
presidential poll. Instead, reports on the ground in France noted a high level of interest in the
political scene, manifest most clearly by the record number of people -- 44.5 million -- who
registered to vote.
As the campaign season in France swung into full gear, employment appeared to be the dominant
issue. Other issues included law and order, immigration, as well as economic reform.
Center-right candidate, Sarkozy, campaigned on a commitment to revitalizing French notions of
hard work. To this end, Sarkozy criticized his fellow French citizens for working less hours in
comparison with other European countries. He also promised significant economic reform, which
he characterized as a "rupture" with the past. Among young people seeking economic change and
fresh prospects, such a message resonated well. But for others, the notion of such a rupture
signified an end to the French way of life.
Socialist candidate, Royal, campaigned on the promise of a higher minimum wage for workers. As
well, she proposed a new youth employment contract, intended to provide young people in France
with employment opportunities in a highly select and limited job market. Overall, she advocated
France Review 2016
France
a fairer society in which freedom would be advanced along with justice, and where economic
efficiency would be realized along with social progress.
Final opinion polls a week before the election scheduled for April 22, 2007 suggested that a second
round between the two top vote-getters from the pool of 12 candidates was in the offing, and
would likely involve Sarkozy and Royal. As such, the standpoint fight between the conservatives
and socialists -- the right and the left -- was set to unfold. The polls showed Sarkozy holding a
small lead over Royal -- indicating a tightening of the race. As aforementioned just above, polling
data suggested that the Socialist candidate was losing ground to the moderate,
Bayrou. Nevertheless, the significant number of people who were still undecided a week before
election day stood at a high 33 percent, effectively demonstrating that the outcome could still hold
much surprise.
On election day, turnout in the French election was at a record high of 85 percent -- the highest
level of participation in 50 years. In fact, the election authorities allowed extra time for voting,
given the long lines of people waiting to cast their ballots. According to the French Interior
Ministry, election results showed that Sarkozy garnered 31.1 percent of the vote share, Royal
received 25.8 percent, Bayrou acquired the third place finish with 18.6 percent, and Le Pen took
10 5 percent. Six other left-wing candidates secured 10 percent of vote, and two conservative
candidates won 3.5 percent.
With the first round completed, Sarkozy and Royal were expected to contest the run-off election
on May 6, 2007. That second round augured a clear choice between the political right and left
respectively, and about the two divergent visions of France in the future.
Soon after the first round results were formalized, the other left-wing candidates endorsed Royal in
anticipation of the second round. Le Pen, however, asserted that his support would not be easily
awarded to another contender. The main question was who would benefit in the run-off election
from the supporters of the moderate centrist, Bayrou. For his part, Bayrou expressly stated that he
would not endorse either Sarkozy or Royal. His specific criticisms of the two final contenders,
however, offered a clue of where his inclinations resided. While he noted that Royal's economic
proposals would do the country no good, he excoriated Sarkozy for his links to large corporations,
and darkly predicted that France under Sarkozy would see concentrated power and aggravated
social divisions.
Whether or not Bayrou's supporters would interpret his words as a veiled intimation begrudgingly
in support of Royal and against Sarkozy was yet to be seen. For the moment, however, polling
data made it clear that Sarkozy was the favorite to win the presidency, with 52-54 percent of the
vote share forecast to go to him in the run-off election. Royal was expected to ultimately garner
46-48 percent.
France Review 2016
France
As the campaigning resumed, Sarkozy worked to refine his hard-line image and depiction as a
divisive element on the French social and political scene. On the other side of the equation, Royal
worked to attract moderate voters, while quelling the doubts of standpoint Socialists, who have
viewed her credentials as insuffiently leftist.
In the days leading up to the second and final round of the French election, center-right candidate
Nicolas Sarkozy and Socialist candidate Segolene Royal took to the campaign trail to make their
final bids for the presidency. Both candidates claimed victory following the presidential debate,
which was televised nationally. The same major issues of employment, economic strength, as
well as law and order, were highlighted in the debate and on the campaign trail. However, the
debate also took a fiery turn when Sarkozy talked about providing better facilities for disabled
children and Royal accused him of hypocrisy on the issue, given his party's record on such
matters.
Meanwhile, first round candidates Bayrou and Le Pen were indicating with greater clarity their
stances of support in the second round. Bayrou, who stopped short of endorsing Royal, made it
clear that he would not be voting for Sarkozy. He warned that Sarkozy's victory would result in a
severe rupture within France's social fabric. He also observed that Royal had offered a good
performance in the debate. For his part, Le Pen urged his supporters to stay away from the polls.
With the election only days away, a poll published in Le Monde showed Sarkozy poised for victory
with just about 53 percent of the vote share, and Royal trailing in the 47 percent range. With just
10 percent of the electorate was undecided, Royal would have to work hard to get most of the
remaining uncommitted vote in order to claim victory.
On election day, May 6, 2007, turnout was a record high of 85.5 percent. With partial results
available, it was clear that Sarkozy had won the election. Based on those partial results,
projections were made that Sarkozy had won 53 percent of the vote share, while Royal had
garnered 47 percent. As such, the official result, which was later confirmed, appeared to be
consistent with the polling data. Bayrou's voters from the first round appeared to have split their
votes almost equally between Sarkozy and Royal in the second round.
Sarkozy claimed victory, saying, "France has given me everything, and now it is my turn to render
to France what France has given me." Royal, the first woman to ever make it to a second round
in French elections, conceded defeat saying, "I gave it all my efforts, and will continue."
With Sarkozy at the helm, France was headed in the direction of significant reform. Among his
objectives would be the reduction of the unemployment rate from 8.3 percent to around five
percent, the implementation of tax changes, pension reform, flexibility in labor laws, more
autonomy for universities, a crackdown on crime and stronger sentencing for repeat offenders,
tightened immigration accompanied by greater integration for minorities in France, and and
France Review 2016
France
continued transportation even during times of strikes.
In the realm of foreign relations, however, it was unlikely that France's stances would shift
radically. While some American analysts characterized Sarkozy as more "pro-American" than
outgoing President Jacques Chirac, in fact, Sarkozy was not a supporter of the war in
Iraq. Indeed, during his victory speech, Sarkozy made a point of noting that while the United
States would have a friend in France, independent views on central issues should be expected. On
this issue, he said, "France will always be at America's side when it needs us, but I want to tell
Americans that friendship means tolerating that friends think differently." Sarkozy also called on
the United States to lead the fight against global warming, which he characterized as one of his
own country's biggest priorities.
Also, while European analysts have questioned whether he could continue the close alliance with
Germany, one of his first initiatives as head of state was to urge renewed attention to the European
Union constitution -- a move that echoed a call earlier articulated by German Chancellor Merkel.
Meanwhile, with these objectives on his immediate agenda, the newly-elected French president
was still faced with the challenge of unifying a deeply divided country in the post-election period.
To this end, during his victory speech Sarkozy promised to be a president for all the French
people. He said, "Above and beyond the political fight... for me there is only one France. I will be
president of all the French."
Nicolas Sarkozy was inaugurated into office on May 16, 2007. A day later, moderate conservative
Francois Fillon of the ruling UMP was named to be the new prime minister. Fillon was one of
Sarkozy's closest confidantes during the election campaign, and his background dealing with
pensions was expected to help the new head of government advance reform in that particular
arena.
On May 18, 2007, the new French cabinet was released, with certain key names included,
effectively indicating policy stances. First, Socialist Bernard Kouchner was named as the foreign
minister, suggesting that France's foreign policy would like continue along its existing course. Next,
former Prime Minister Alain Juppe was named as the minister responsible for the environment -- a
clear nod to the importance placed on that particular issue. Another familiar and noted name,
Michele Alliot-Marie, the former minster of defense, was named to the portfolio for the interior
ministry. Meanwhile, centrist Herve Morin was selected to take on responsibility for the defense
ministry. While the size of cabinet was reduced overall, a new portfolio for immigration,
integration and national identity, was created with Sarkozy ally, Brice Hortefeux, at the helm.
The new ministry was aimed at dealing with the rising problem of ethnic tensions in France by
advancing national unity and ethnic integration. Among the women named to cabinet posts were
Christine Lagarde, who was chosen for the role of agriculture minister, and Christine Boutin, who
was selected as housing and urban settlements minister.
France Review 2016
France
Parliamentary Elections of 2007
In June 2007, French voters returned to the polls to vote in the first round of the country's
parliamentary elections. Turnout was much lower than the presidential elections held a month
earlier at only 61 percent. Nevertheless, President Sarkozy was expecting a strong performance by
his Union for a Popular Movement or UMP. Indeed, polling data showed that the UMP was
expected to win a landslide victory, thus issuing a clear reform mandate to newly-appointed Prime
Minister Francois Fillon. Meanwhile, the Socialists were expected to face a significant loss of up to
half their current seats. As such, Socialist presidential candidate Segolene Royal called on leftleaning voters to turn out to vote in the second round.
In the second round of the parliamentary elections on June 17, 2007, voter turnout was a low 60
percent. When the votes had been counted, President Sarkozy's UMP had won a majority, but not
the expected landslide victory.
In fact, the UMP and its allies won 314 seats in the 577-member assembly -- a decrease from 359
seats in the previous parliament when Jacques Chirac was president. Also problematic was the fact
that former Prime Minister Alain Juppe, who was appointed as Minister of Energy and
Environment, lost his seat. As such, his resignation from cabinet was imminent. Nevertheless,
President Sarkozy would have command of enough seats to push through his reform agenda.
Meanwhile, the Socialists defied common expectations and actually gained in representation,
ultimately winning 185 seats. As well, the newly-formed centrist Democratic Movement, founded
by presidential candidate Francois Bayrou, captured three seats. In this way, the parties of the
three main presidential candidates, Sarkozy, Royal and Bayrou, all had reason to celebrate. On the
other side of the equation, the far-right National Front was the loser of the election, winning no
seats.
In the background of the election developments was the looming announcement that Segolene
Royal would soon separate from the Socialist leader, Francois Hollande, on the grounds that he had
been carrying on an affair. She was expected to launch her own bid for the leadership of the
party.
Consistent with custom, the prime minister resigned after the elections and was immediately reappointed. Then, Prime Minister Fillon put forth a new cabinet list. This one excluded the name
of defeated Alain Juppe, and was replaced with Jean-Louis Barloo.
Recent Developments
France Review 2016
France
In mid-September 2007, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that the world should
prepare for war over the Iran's atomic activities. In a media interview, Kouchner observed that
while negotiations with Iran should be fully exhausted before embarking on a new course, the
world should be ready for a worst case scenario if such talks were ultimately unsuccessful. To this
end, he warned, "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war." He also noted that Iran
armed with nuclear weapons would present "a real danger for the whole world."
Signaling that France had taken a position in the debate over Iran burgeoning nuclear program,
Kouchner said that many French companies had been asked not to do business with Iraq. Making
clear that no prohibitions had been established, the French Foreign Minister noted that French
enterprises have been advised not to do so. As well, he made clear that France was in favor of
European Union sanctions against Iran.
(Note: Kouchner, a left-wing politician, has consistently registered support for humanitarian
intervention. He supported President Sarkozy's rival, Segolene Royal, in the recent elections. His
decision to join Sarkozy's government resulted in his alienation from the Socialists.)
French President Sarkozy had earlier characterized war with Iran as "catastrophic" and French
Prime Minister Fillon noted that all avenues would be exhausted in resolving the matter
diplomatically.
For its part, Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes despite
allegations to the contrary by several countries in the West, including the United States.
Meanwhile, the United States has not foreclosed the possibility of military action against Iran to
prevent the acquisition of nuclear weaponry. Current United Nations Security Council resolutions
have imposed economic sanctions on Iran, but have stopped short of endorsing military action.
October 2007 saw France hit by a transportation strike as rail workers took industrial action to
register their discontent over pension reform. By the third week of the month, the strike was
winding down and rail service was resuming. Meanwhile, President Nicolas Sarkozy insisted that
he would go forward with his proposals to overhaul the pension system, as planned. Sarkozy
argued that the pension system, which allowed retirement at age 50 with full pensions, was a relic
of the past. His view was widely supported by the French public. Previous attempts to make such
changes during the presidency of Jacques Chirac, however, were not successful.
That said, media attention was far more focused on the news that President Nicolas Sarkozy and
his wife -- Cecilia Sarkozy -- were divorvcing. The two Sarkozys had been estranged during the
time in which Nicolas Sarkozy was Interior Minister. Indeed, Cecilia Sarkozy was reported to
have been seen in New York with an advertising executive in 2005. However, they reconciled
prior to Nicolas Sarkozy's presidential campaign. That reconciliation was short-lived with the two
deciding to finally go their separate ways. Cecilia Sarkozy was apparently not comfortable living
in the political spotlight.
France Review 2016
France
In the second week of November 2007, the union of national rail workers in France commenced a
strike to protest President Nicolas Sarkozy's proposed pension reforms. The industrial action was
expected to deleteriously affect the movement of commuters in France. French Prime Minister
Francois Fillon noted that many French people would thus be deprived of their right to work.
Nevertheless, utility workers, teachers and civil servants were expected to join the mass strike later
in the month. Yet to be determined was the matter of how the French president would respond to
his most significant challenge since becoming the new head of state.
For his part, Sarkozy appeared to stand firm and carry out his planned reforms, despite the strike.
In a speech to the European Parliament he said, "I will carry out these reforms right to the end.
Nothing will put me off my goal." Reminding people of his mandate to advance his policy
objectives, Sarkozy noted, "The French people approved these reforms. I told them all about it
before the elections so that I would be able to do what was necessary afterwards."
By the third week of November 2007, the high speed TGV rail network was damaged as a result
of fires and other acts, which authorities characterized as sabotage. The situation transpired just as
talks aimed at ending the transport strike were beginning between the government and unions.
Both President Nicolas Sarkozy and union leaders condemned the apparent sabotage.
Then, on Nov. 22, 2007, the strike action came to a tentative end as most union committees voted
to return to work as talks with the government continued. The only exception was Sud Rail, a
more hard line union, which told its members to continue to stay off the job. In many senses, the
decision by most of the unions to return to work signaled a victory for President Sarkozy's
government. However, that victory could be short-lived as the strike was poised to resume by
mid-December 2007 if no resolution is achieved. For its part, the government said it was open to
considering the implementation of the reforms, but that it would not compromise on the central
thrust for reform. Nevertheless, the government noted there were several legitimate issues that
needed to be discussed.
Meanwhile, in other developments, the government was faced with another case of protests against
Sarkozy's proposal to privatize leading universities. As well, riots reminiscent of the 2005 scenario
broke out in a Paris suburb following the deaths of two teenagers when a police car crashed into a
motorcycle.
On March 9, 2008, the country saw its first round of local elections, which were viewed as a
referendum on President Nicolas Sarkozy's ruling center-right Union for a Popular Movement, or
UMP. That referendum resulted in a negative rating for Sarkozy with the UMP trailing the
Socialists 45.5 percent to 47 percent. A second round in France's local elections was scheduled to
take place on March 16, 2008. On that day of the second round, opposition Socialists made
notable gains in key cities, such as Toulouse, Strasbourg and Caen, while holding steady in Paris
France Review 2016
France
and Lyon.
The poor showing of the UMP was attributed to Sarkozy's devolving popularity after almost one
year in office. While he enjoyed an approval rating of 67 percent early in his presidency, almost the
same percent -- 66 percent -- said they now disapproved of Sarkozy's policies, as well as the way
he conducted his personal life. To that end, Socialist leader Francois Hollande reacted to the
election results noting that voters were delivering a message to Sarkozy's government and its
policies. But Sarkozy dismissed such criticisms as well as speculation that he might carry out a
cabinet shuffle or reform his agenda. As well, Prime Minister Francois Fillon downplayed the
UMP's performance at the polls saying, "You can't change a great country like ours in a few
months - tenacity is needed to reform."
Ultimately, Sarkozy was able to attain certain limited reforms in his first year and a half in office.
Sarkozy eliminated income taxes on overtime hours, lengthened the contribution period for retirees
to receive full pensions, and established a "minimum service" requirement on strike days, among
other reforms. He also completed a major revision of the French constitution, which made the
president more accountable to parliament and strengthened the power of the legislature. French and
European Union analysts noted that longer-term reform measures must focus on reducing the
future burden of ballooning public pension and health care budgets, as well as reducing laborrelated taxes.
Note:
In July 2008, France took over the presidency of the European Union for a six-month stint.
Special Entry:
Rwanda accuses France of participation in genocide
A report by the Rwandan Ministry of Justice accused France of active and direct participation on
the genocide that claimed the lives of close to one million people in 1994. The 500-page Justice
Ministry report was issued after a two year investigation into the role played by the European
power and relied on testimonies from researchers, journalists and genocide survivirs to reach its
conclusions.
The report stated that France was aware of the Rwandan authorities' violent plans and even
provided military training for ethnic Bahutus who waged the bloody assault on ethnic Batutsis and
moderate Bahutus. Expressed more broadly, the report accused France of providing military,
logistical, political and diplomatic support to Rwanda's Bahutu-dominated government.
Indeed, 33 French military and political figures, including the late former President Francois
France Review 2016
France
Mitterrand, former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, former Prime Minister Edouard
Balladur, and former Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, were identified in the report as deserving of
prosecution. A statement by the Rwandan Ministry of Justice noted the following: "Considering
the seriousness of the alleged crimes, the Rwandan government has urged the relevant authorities
to bring the accused French politicians and military officials to justice."
For its part, the French government said that it would not respond to the allegations until it has had
time to study the report. Earlier in 2008, when French complicity in Rwanda's genocide had been
previously raised, current French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner denied any responsibility by
his country. That said, he acknowledged that some political mistakes had been made.
Throughout, France has said that its role in Rwanda was to protect civilians.
Special Entry:
Global credit crisis; effects felt in Europe
Summary:
A financial farrago, rooted in the credit crisis, became a global phenomenon by the start of
October 2008. In the United States, after failure of the passage of a controversial bailout plan in
the lower chamber of Congress, an amended piece of legislation finally passed through both houses
of Congress. There were hopes that its passage would calm jitters on Wall Street and restore
confidence in the country's financial regime. However, a volatile week on Wall Street followed,
most sharply characterized by a precipitous 18 percent drop of the Dow Jones. With the situation
requiring rapid and radical action, a new proposal for the government to bank stakes was gaining
steam. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in Europe, with banks also in jeopardy of failing, and with
no coordinated efforts to stem the tide by varying countries of the European Union, there were
rising anxieties not only about the resolving the financial crisis, but also about the viability of the
European bloc. Nevertheless, European leaders were able to forge an agreement aimed at easing
the credit crunch in that region of the world. Following is an exploration, first, of the situation in
the United States, and, second, of the situation unfolding in Europe.
Report:
On Sept. 28, 2008, as the United States was reeling from the unfolding credit crisis, Europe's
banking sector was also hit by its own woes when the Dutch operations of the European banking
and insurance entity, Fortis, was partly nationalized in an effort to prevent its ultimate demise.
Radical action was spurred by anxieties that Fortis was too much of a banking and financial giant to
be allowed to fail. The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg forged an agreement to contribute
more than 11 billion euros (approximately US$16 billion) to shore up Fortis, whose share price
fell precipitously due to worries about its bad debts.
France Review 2016
France
A day later, the mortgage lender -- Bradford and Bingley -- in the United Kingdom was
nationalized when the British government took control of the bank's mortgages and loans. Left
out of the nationalization scheme were the savings and branch operations, which were sold off to
Santander of Spain. Earlier, the struggling mortgage lender, Northern Rock, had itself been
nationalized. The head of the British Treasury, Alistair Darling, indicated that "big steps" that
would not normally be taken were in the offing, given the unprecedented nature of the credit crisis.
On the same day, financial woes came to a head in Iceland when the government was compelled
to seize control of the country's third-largest bank , Glitnir, due to financial problems and fears that
it would go insolvent. Iceland was said to be in serious financial trouble, given the fact that its
liabilities were in gross excess of the country's GDP. Further action was anticipated in Iceland, as a
result.
On Sept 30, 2008, another European bank -- Dexia -- was the victim of the intensifying global
banking and financial crisis. In order to keep Dexia afloat, the governments of France, Belgium,
and Luxembourg convened talks and agreed to contribute close to 6.5 billion euros (approximately
US$9 billion) to keep Dexia from suffering a demise.
Only days later, the aforementioned Fortis bank returned to the forefront of the discussion in
Europe. Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme said he was hoping to locate a new owner with the
aim of restoring confidence in Fortis, and thusly, preventing a further downturn in the markets.
Leterme said that the authorities were considering takeover bids for the Belgian operations of the
company (the Dutch operations were nationalized as noted above.)
By Sept. 5, 2008, one of Germany's biggest banks, Hypo Real Estate, was at risk of failing. In
response, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she would exhaust all efforts to save the bank.
A rescue plan by the government and banking institutions was eventually agreed upon at a cost of
50 billion euros (approximately US$70 billion). This agreement involved a higher cost than was
previously discussed.
Meanwhile, as intimated above, Iceland was enduring further financial shocks to its entire banking
system. As such, the government of Iceland was involved in intense discussions aimed at saving
the country's financial regime, which were now at severe risk of collapse due to insolvency of the
country's commercial banks.
Meanwhile, on Sept. 4, 2008, the leaders of key European states -- United Kingdom, France,
Germany, and Italy -- met in the French capital city of Paris to discuss the financial farrago and to
consider possible action. The talks, which were hosted by French President Nicolas Sarkozy,
ended without consensus on what should be done to deal with the credit crisis, which was rapidly
becoming a global phenomenon. The only thing that the four European countries agreed upon was
that there would not be a grand rescue plan, akin to the type that was initiated in the United
France Review 2016
France
States. As well, they jointly called for more greater regulation and a coordinated response. To
that latter end, President Nicolas Sarkozy said, "Each government will operate with its own
methods and means, but in a coordinated manner."
This call came after Ireland took independent action to deal with the burgeoning financial crisis.
Notably, the Irish government decided days earlier to fully guarantee all deposits in the country's
major banks for a period of two years. The Greek government soon followed suit with a similar
action. These actions by Ireland and Greece raised the ire of other European countries, and
evoked questions of whether Ireland and Greece had violated any European Union charters. An
investigation by the European Union was pending into whether or not Ireland's guarantee of all
savings deposits was anti-competitive in nature.
Nevertheless, as anxieties about the safety of bank deposits rose across Europe, Ireland and
Greece saw an influx of new banking customers from across the continent, presumably seeking the
security of knowing their money would be safe amidst a financial meltdown. And even with
questions rising about the decisions of the Irish and Greek government, the government of
Germany decided to go down a similar path by guaranteeing all private bank accounts. For his part,
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that his government would increase the limit on
guaranteed bank deposits from £35,000 to £50,000.
In these various ways, it was clear that there was no concurrence among some of Europe's most
important economies. In fact, despite the meeting in France, which called for coordination among
the countries of the European bloc, there was no unified response to the global financial crisis.
Instead, that meeting laid bare the divisions within the countries of the European Union, and
called into question the very viability of the European bloc. Perhaps that question of viability
would be answered at a forthcoming G8 summit, as recommended by those participating in the
Paris talks.
A week later, another meeting of European leaders in Paris ended with concurrence that no large
institution would be allowed to fail. The meeting, which was attended by leaders of euro zone
countries, resulted in an agreement to guarantee loans between banks until the end of 2009, with
an eye on easing the credit crunch. The proposal, which would apply in 15 countries, also
included a plan for capital infusions by means of purchasing preference shares from banks.
The United Kingdom, which is outside the euro zone, had already announced a similar strategy.
Indeed, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gained cachet for his steady handling of the
financial crisis. Brown said that his government had to be the "rock of stability" during the crisis
and explained that injections of capital by the British Treasury and the government takeover of
banks was "unprecedented but necessary."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy argued that these unprecedented measures were of vital
importance. The French leader said, "The crisis has over the past few days entered into a phase
France Review 2016
France
that makes it intolerable to opt for procrastination and a go-it-alone approach." He also tried to
ease growing frustration that such measures would benefit the wealthy by explaining that the
strategy would not constitute "a gift to banks."
While these developments were aimed at restoring confidence in the financial regime in Europe,
Iceland continued to struggle. Indeed, the country's economy stood precipitously close to
collapse. Three banks, including the country's largest one -- Kaupthing -- had to be rescued by
the government. Landsbanki and Glitnir had been nationalized. With the country in a state of
economic panic, trading on the OMX Nordic Exchange was suspended temporarily, although it
was expected to reopen on October 13, 2008. Once re-opened, the OMX Nordic Exchange
experienced a high degree of volatility -- initially plunging before recouping some losses.
In early 2009, according to the European Commission, European banks were in need of as much
as several trillion in bailout funding. Impaired or toxic assets factored highly on the European
Union bank balance sheets, with credit default swaps on Irish debt running at 355 basis points
higher at the time of writing -- the highest rate in Europe and well on its way down the path of
Iceland. Anxieties were so high in Dublin that tens of thousands of people took to the streets to
protest the growing financial crisis.
Meanwhile, the fallout from the housing bubble was deleteriously affecting the United Kingdom,
with anxieties being stoked about whether British banks could at all be saved.
In Spain, unemployment was in double digit territory and industrial production plunged 20 percent
from where it was a year earlier. It was anticipated that credit default swaps for Spain, Portugal,
Italy and Greece would double over the course of the next year. In other parts of Europe,
according to economist Nouriel Roubini, the economies of Ukraine, Belarus, Hungary, Latvia and
Lithuania appeared to be on the brink of disaster.
Regarding Ukraine, there were fears that it would might not abide with terms of a loan from the
International Monetary Fund and thusly default on its debt. Meanwhile in Poland, the currency
was falling and in Russia, even as the rouble fell, the Kremli warned of economic contraction.
Overall, Eastern European countries borrowed heavily from Western European banks. Thus, even
if the currencies on the eastern part of the continent collapse, effects will be felt in the western part
of Europe as well. For example, Swiss banks that gave billions of credit to Eastern Europe cannot
look forward to repayment anytime soon. As well, Austrian banks have had extensive exposure to
Eastern Europe, and can anticipate a highly increased cost of insuring its debt.
German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck has warned that as many as 16 European Union
countries will require assistance. Indeed, his statements suggest the need for a regional rescue
effort. Of consideration is the fact that, according to the Maastricht Treaty, state-funded bailouts
are prohibited.
France Review 2016
France
By the close of February 2009, it was announced that the banking sectors in Central and Eastern
Europe would receive a rescue package of $31 billion, via the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (EBRD), the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the World Bank. The rescue
package was aimed at assisting the survival of small financial institutions and included equity and
debt financing, as well as access to credit and risk insurance aimed at encouraging lending.
Also in February 2009, with the global financial crisis intensifying, leaders of European Union
countries backed sweeping financial regulations. Included in the package of market reforms were
sanctions on tax havens, caps on bonus payments to management, greater hedge fund regulation,
and increased influence by the International Monetary Fund. European leaders also backed a
charter of sustainable economic activity, that would subject all global financial activities to both
regulation and accountability by credit rating agencies.
These moves were made ahead of the Group of 20 summit scheduled for April 2, 2009, in
London. It was not known whether other countries outside Europe, such as the United States,
Japan, India and China, would support the new and aggressive regime of market regulation. That
said, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in Berlin that Europe had a responsibility to chart this
track. She said, "Europe will own up to its responsibility in the world."
Recent Developments
Rising food prices in French Caribbean territories of Martinique and Guadeloupe lead to protests
and strikes in February 2009. The unrest was so great that tourist remained trapped in hotels for
days, while shops and gas stations were closed. In the city of Point a Pitre, a union official was
shot to death.
In response to the rising tide of chaos and violence, French President Nicolas Sarkozy convened
emergency meetings with representatives of the two island territories. Following those meetings,
the French president pledged $730m in economic aid to these islands, a plan for political reform,
and military units to maintain security . Included in the plan for economic aid was a proposal to
increase or supplement payments to workers, in an effort to address the rising cost of living.
In a speech that was broadcast in the two French overseas departments, President Sarkozy
expressed empathy for the plight of the people saying, "I know the frustrations, the injuries, the
suffering that have to be overcome."
In March 2009, at least 1.2 million French workers participated in a nationwide strike in France.
The strike began with the closure of the major portions of transit system, although schools, public
buildings, and other institutions were also shut down.
France Review 2016
France
At issue has been the objection by unions to President Nicolas Sarkozy's economic policies at a
time when unemployment has skyrocketed to two million. Unions have rejected the French
president’s stimulus package, valued at about $35 billion (26 billion euro), arguing that it did not go
far enough and failed to protect workers at a times of recession. The unions have called for
measures such as an increase in the minimum wage, a suspension of cuts to public sector jobs as
well as government-sponsored employment protection measures.
Jean-Claude Mailly, the head of the Force Ouvriere union, explained workers’ frustrations saying,
"They have a profound sense of social injustice, and that, I think, is something that neither the
government nor the employers have understood." In the political realm, Benoit Hamon, a
spokesperson for the Socialist Party, excoriated Sarkozy charging, “We have a president who
aggravates the crisis by making the wrong economic and social choices. ” Hamon continued, “He
[Sarkozy] refuses to give answers regarding layoffs, regarding the cost of living, regarding the way
to objectively avoid the rise in job losses in the public sector or in the public health system.”
The mass action went off peacefully although police had to use tear gas to disperse small groups in
isolated cases in Paris. It was the second major demonstration in 2009 since workers took to the
streets in January 2009 to register their discontent. Throughout, polling data has indicated that 75
percent of French citizens support the strikes.
Also in March 2009, French President Nicolas Sarkozy formally submitted a request to rejoin the
NATO command structure. President Sarkozy said he wanted France to fully participate in the
alliance’s military strategic and policy-making endeavors.
This move came after France’s 43-year absence from the security alliance. In 1966, then-President
Charles de Gaulle withdrew France from the NATO command and forced all allied troops and
bases to leave France in a bid to reassert sovereignty over French terrain. While France remained a
member of NATO, it was no longer involved in the decision-making of the alliance.
This decision has been regarded as a source of friction between Paris and Washington since it
occurred at the height of the Cold War. While bilateral relations have nonetheless remained in tact,
France’s decision to stay out of the United States-led invasion of Iraq stirred tensions in 2003.
Since taking office in 2007, President Sarkozy has sought to strengthen ties with the United States.
Warm relations with United States President Barack Obama have augmented Sarkozy’s efforts in
this regard.
But Sarkozy was faced with opposition at varied elements at home; activists on the left and right
ends of the political spectrum have argued that the move could undermine France’s ability to
function autonomously in matters related to international relations. Thus, with the intent to ratify
Sarkozy’s decision, French Prime Minister organized a confidence motion in parliament, which
passed handily.
France Review 2016
France
Note: Despite an absence from the NATO command structure since 1966, French troops have
been participating in significant NATO missions, such as Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. As well,
France is one of the top five contributors to NATO’s military operations and the fourth most
generous contributor to the budget for NATO operations.
In April 2009, leaders of NATO member states met in the French city of Strasbourg amidst fierce -and sometimes violent --protests. The NATO meeting was being jointly hosted by the German city
of Kehl although it was France that garnered more attention.
Indeed, the meeting marked the 60th anniversary of the security alliance in addition to France’s
return to NATO’s command structure, as discussed above. At the NATO meetings, United States
President Barack Obama emphasized the need to repairing his country’s ties with Europe in the
wake of the Bush era, when unilateralism was the dominating philosophy. President Obama called
for both greater responsibility and increased cooperation for the purpose of advancing global peace
and security.
Prior to the NATO meeting, leaders of the world’s largest economies, known as the “G-20,” met in
London to explore possible responses to the global financial crisis. To that end, they forged a deal
valued at more than one trillion dollars (USD).
Central to the agreement was an infusion of $750 billion to the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), which was aimed at helping troubled economies. Up to $100 billion of that amount was
earmarked to assist the world’s very poorest countries -- an amount far greater than had been
expected. In many senses, the infusion of funding to the IMF marked a strengthening of that body
unseen since the 1980s.
In addition, the G-20 leaders settled on a $250 billion increase in global trade. The world’s poorest
countries would also benefit from the availability of $250 billion of trade credit.
After some debate, the G-20 leaders decided to levy sanctions against clandestine tax havens and
to institute strict financial regulations. Such regulations included tougher controls on banking
professionals’ salaries and bonuses, and increased oversight of hedge funds and credit rating
agencies. A Financial Stability Board was to be established that would work in concert with the
IMF to facilitate cross-border cooperation, and also to provide early warnings regarding the
financial system.
Aside from these measures, the G-20 countries were already implementing their own economic
stimulus measures at home, aimed at reversing the global recession. Together, these economic
stimulus packages would inject approximately $5 trillion by the end of 2010.
United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown played host at the meeting, which most concurred
went off successfully, despite the presence of anti-globalization and anarchist protestors. Prime
France Review 2016
France
Minister Brown warned that there was "no quick fix" for the economic woes facing the
international community, but he drew attention to the consensus that had been forged in the
interest of the common good. He said, "This is the day that the world came together to fight back
against the global recession, not with words, but with a plan for global recovery and for reform and
with a clear timetable for its delivery.”
All eyes were on United States President Barack Obama, who characterized the G-20 summit as
“a turning point” in the effort towards global economic recovery. He also hailed the advances
agreed upon to reform the failed regulatory regime that contributed to the financial crisis that has
gripped many of the economies across the globe. Thusly, President Obama declared the London
summit to be historic saying, "It was historic because of the size and the scope of the challenges
that we face and because of the timeliness and the magnitude of our response.”
Ahead of the summit, there were reports of a growing rift between the respective duos of France
and Germany -- and -- the United States and the United Kingdom. While France and Germany
were emphasizing stricter financial regulations, the United States and the United Kingdom were
advocating public spending to deal with the economic crisis. Indeed, French President Nicolas
Sarkozy had threatened to bolt the meeting if his priority issues were not addressed. But such an
end did not occur, although tensions were existent.
To that end, President Obama was hailed for his diplomatic skills after he brokered an agreement
between France and China on tax havens. The American president played the role of peacemaker
between French President Sarkozy and Chinese Premier Hu Jintao, paving the way for a meeting
of the minds on the matter of tax havens.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the concurrence reached at the G-20 summit were
"more than we could have hoped for." President Sarkozy also credited President Obama for the
American president’s leadership at the summit, effusively stating: "President Obama really found
the consensus. He didn't focus exclusively on stimulus ... In fact it was he who managed to help
me persuade [Chinese] President Hu Jintao to agree to the reference to the ... publication of a list
of tax havens, and I wish to thank him for that."
Meanwhile, German Chancellor Angela Merkel also expressed positive feedback about the success
of the summit noting that the new measures would give the international arena a "clearer financial
market architecture." She noted that the agreement reached was "a very, very good, almost historic
compromise." Finally, Chancellor Merkel had warm words of praise for President Obama. “The
American president also put his hand into this,” said Merkel.
Note: The G-20 leaders agreed to meet again in September 2009 in New York to assess the
progress of their agenda.
In June 2009, France decided to establish a commission to study Islamic women's choice to wear
France Review 2016
France
the veil or "burka" and to examine ways to restrict its use. To that end, the French National
Assembly appointed a panel of 32 legislators tasked with these objectives. This development came
on the heels of a speech by President Nicolas Sarkozy, who argued that wearing such veils
undermined the dignity of women. He also rejected the claim that the wearning the veil was a form
of religious expression and tradition. Instead, the French president asserted that wearing the burka
was a "sign of subservience" and it was an unacceptable practice in France. The move was likely
to evoke the ire of Muslims in France -- Western Europe's largest Islamic enclave -- much like the
protests that occurred in 2004 when head scarves in public schools were banned.
Months later in August 2009, French authorities banned a Muslim woman from wearing a "burkini"
-- a garment that covers the entire body --at a public swimming pool. The staff at the swimming
pool told the woman that she was in violation of the rules that disallow swimming while clothed.
The woman at the center of the controversy has argued that the move by the pool staff was akin to
"segregation." But opponents have noted that the type of outfit worn by the woman was not an
Islamic swimsuit, and indeed, no such suit exists under the rubric of the Koran. The issue has
been the latest example of an ongoing cultural debate in France, which is home to Europe's largest
Muslim population, about reconciling religious expressions with gender equality and secularity.
On March 22, 2010, following defeat at the polls for his ruling party in regional elections, French
President Nicolas Sarkozy announced plans to reshuffle his cabinet. At issue was the resounding
victory for opposition left-wing parties who collectively garnered more than 54 percent of the vote
share, as compared with Sarkozy's ruling center-right Union for a Popular Movement UMP),
which took only 36 percent and lost all but one of the 22 mainland regions.
The election outcome was regarded as a repudiation of the reform policies undertaken by President
Sarkozy and the UMP government since coming to power. The combination of high
unemployment and the public's furor over changes to the pension system appeared to be driving
the mass discontent. Meanwhile, polling data has indicated that Sarkozy's popularity has fallen to
an all-time low with only around 36 percent favoring his leadership. Of course, Sarkozy still had
two years -- until 2012 -- to improve his standing ahead of the next presidential election. In the
immediate future, governing changes were afoot.
According to a statement from the Elysee Palace, Budget Minister Eric Woerth was named to
replace Xavier Darcos as the new labor minister, while Darcos was ousted from the cabinet due to
poor performance in the regional election. Francois Baroin, former Interior Minister and a stalwart
of former President Jacques Chirac, was nominated as the new Budget Minister. Marc-Philippe
Daubresse, member of the National Assembly was named to head the Ministry of Youth and
Solidarity, and Georges Tron, an ally of former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, named to
serve as Secretary of State for Public Service.
On July 13, 2010, France's lower house of parliament passed legislation banning the Islamic
France Review 2016
France
"niqab" or face veil. The vote was not a close one; instead, there were 336 votes in its favor and
only one against it, with the main opposition party, the Socialists, abstaining from the vote, The
bill was therefore advanced to the Senate where it was expected to pass easily as well in a vote
expected to take place in September 2010. The main hurdle would be at the constitutional level
where it would undergo scrutiny via the French constitutional watchdog group.
On July 29, 2010, French Labor Minister Eric Woerth was scheduled to be questioned by police as
a witness in an investigation into alleged tax evasion by Liliane Bettencourt, an heiress to the
L'Oreal fortune. Revelations that Woerth's wife worked for Bettencourt as a wealth manager, along
with claims by Bettencourt's former accountant that Woerth received illegal political donations on
behalf of the ruling party have contributed to calls for the cabinet minister to resign from office. A
close ally of President Nicholas Sarkozy, Woerth has been credited for pushing through elusive
pension reform in France in 2010. He has also denied any involvement in the accusations noted
here.
In the period of late July 2010, French President Nicolas Sarkozy ordered the expulsion of Roma - a group of illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe known more colloquially as Gypsies -- and the
dismantling of about 300 of their camps. He said that illegal Roma camps illegal Gypsy camps "will
be systematically evacuated." The action appeared to have been spurred by a spate of violence
between Roma and police earlier in the month, which was rooted in the shooting death of a youth
running from police in the Loire Valley. President Sarkozy warned that those responsible for the
violent clashes would be "severely punished."
The order from the French president came even as critics accused his government of racism. That
criticism was only heightened soon thereafter when President Sarkozy said that French immigration
law should be changed to make such expulsions easier, justifying the measure on the basis of
"public order." Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux insisted that the moves were not intended "to
stigmatize any community, regardless of who they are, but to punish illegal behavior."
Critics noted that the language of "evacuation" and "expulsion" evoked memories of World War II
when Roma were rounded up and placed in concentration camps during the Nazi occupation of
France. Indeed, across Europe, between 250,000 and 1.5 million Roma were killed; the wide
variance in estimates of Roma deaths has been attributed to the clandestine executions and disposal
of bodies in mass graves. Fast forward to the present and critics excoriated Sarkozy and the French
government for targeting a single ethnic group, while Roma community leaders pointed out that
they were never invited for talks with the government to discuss the situation.
By July 30, 2010, tensions increased when President Nicolas Sarkozy said that as part of the
"national war on delinquency," he wanted to revoke the French citizenship of immigrants who
endanger the lives of police officers. He said, "French nationality should be earned. One must
know how to be worthy of it." President Sarkozy also warned that the "rights and benefits" of
France Review 2016
France
illegal immigrants would be re-examined. The French president delivered his remarks from
Grenoble - the site of recent urban unrest -- suggesting that they were in response to the chaos that
erupted there.
However, in the eyes of the French people, President Sarkozy's speech was likely to be juxtaposed
with images shown on the Internet of African immigrant squatters, including a pregnant woman
and several other women with babies on their backs, being dragged from a housing encampment in
a suburb of Paris. While no one was injured in the evacuation operation, Sarkozy's threats set
against images described by an international women's group, Family Planning, as "scandalizing,"
evoked shock across France. That shock only increased when a human rights group noted that the
people shown in the Internet video had been evicted from a previous housing project and provided
with no viable alternative. French authorities explained their eviction techniques by saying that their
actions were "according to legal procedures and rules in such circumstances."
Together, these recent actions by President Sarkozy appeared to evoke his earlier image as the
protector of law and order when he served as interior minister, and suggested a desire to shore up
his reputation in this regard. Suffering from low approval ratings, some observers surmised that
Sarkozy may have been playing to his conservative base in an effort to boost his standing. The
political implications were yet to be seen in a country with a complicated socio-cultural landscape.
While some were sure to applaud his "national war on delinquency," others would likely accuse
him of being a xenophobe. To this end, the League of Human Rights said, "The xenophobia of
Nicolas Sarkozy threatens democracy." Nevertheless, an August 2010 poll showed that the
majority of French voters approved of Sarkozy's tough stances on these matters of law and order.
On Aug. 6, 2010, France began the process of dismantling the illegal Roma camps following the
presidential order for such camps to be removed. Police sealed off an area housing an encampment
and evicted the occupants. As well, the government explained the need for the resolute action,
saying that the camps were "sources of illegal trafficking, of profoundly shocking living standards,
of exploitation of children for begging, of prostitution and crime." Over the next several weeks,
more than 1,000 people were deported to Romania and Bulgaria.
By the last week of August 2010, President Sarkozy's hardline stance against Roma (Gypsies) and
immigrants was earning rebuke from all quarters of society -- the political left, the political right, as
well as the Catholic Church and the European Union.
In the French publication, le Monde, a former justice minister who was once a close ally of
President Sarkozy, Rachida Dati, called on France to respect immigrants. In an editorial published
in the very same edition of Le Monde, former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin -- hardly a
left-wing politician given his tenure as part of the center-right government -- characterized the
president's stance as "a stain on shame on our flag." Notably, De Villepin was expected to
challenge Sarkozy in presidential elections two years down the road. Former Prime Minister Lionel
Jospin, a Socialist, excoriated the president for using harsh law and order rhetoric while at the same
France Review 2016
France
time reducing the number of police patrolling the streets.
Criticism also came from the Vatican, with Pope Benedict XVI calling on French pilgrims to
educate their children about "universal fraternity." As well, Agostino Marchetto, the secretary of a
Vatican body known as the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant
People, noted: "One cannot generalize and take an entire group of people and kick them out."
Perhaps most problematic for President Sarkozy was the response from the European Union
(EU). In the first week of September 2010, the European Parliament urged France to halt the
deportations. The French government responded by dismissing this call. Days later, EU Justice
Commissioner Viviane Reding characterized the actions by the French government against the
Roma (Gypsies) as "a disgrace." The full statement at issue was as follows: "This is not a minor
offence. After 11 years of experience in the Commission, I even go further: This is a disgrace.”
France responded to this excoriation by expressing "astonishment" over Reding's statement.
Indeed, French Foreign Ministry spokesman, Bernard Valero, described the strong language of EU
Justice Commissioner Reding as unproductive. He said, "We don't think that with this type of
statement, that we can improve the situation of the Roma, who are at the heart of our concerns
and our action." Speaking at the EU summit in the Belgian capital of Brussels, French President
Sarkozy mocked Reding by suggesting that Roma (Gypsies" go to Luxembourg -- the EU Justice
Commissioner's home country.
The situation was not laid to rest as EU Justice Commissioner Reding called on the European
Commission to take legal action against France over the deportations of deportations of the Roma
(Gypsies). Reding said at a news conference on September 14, 2010 that she would propose
proceedings by the European Commission, with a decision likely to be made by the close of the
month. France would be accused of violating EU regulations, which expressly prohibit
discrimination against any ethnic or national group. Reding said of the stated case against France.
"I am personally convinced that the Commission will have no choice but to initiate infringement
proceedings against France." The case could ultimately go before the European Court of Justice
in Luxembourg. Should the European Commission decide in favor of disciplinary action against
France, that country would be subject to substantial fines.
Officially, France has insisted that it respects EU laws and asserted that there has been no
systematic discrimination of Roma (Gypsies). Instead, French authorities made the claim that
deported Roma (Gypsies) left the country voluntarily and pointed to cash payments made to
deported individuals as evidence.
That being said, a leaked document was published in the French media cast the controversy in a
different light by contradicting assurances made by French Immigration Minister Eric Besson and
Minister for Europe Pierre Lellouche during a briefing with EU Justice Commissioner Reding. In
that briefing the French ministers assured Redding that the expulsion of immigrants was taking
France Review 2016
France
place on a case by case basis. However, the document, which was sent from the French Interior
Ministry to regional heads of the French police suggested that the Roma (Gypsies) had been the
particular target of the deportment plan.
Meanwhile, despite an early nod of approval by a majority of French voters expressing support for
the hardline crackdown, there was no actual benefit to the president's low approval ratings, which
remained south of 35 percent. Indeed, a poll by Viavoice for the publication, Liberation, showed
that as many as 55 percent of the electorate would prefer to see one of President Sarkozy's left
wing rival secure the presidency in elections to come in 2012.
Earlier, as discussed above, France's lower house of parliament convincingly passed legislation
banning the Islamic "niqab" or face veil. The bill was therefore advanced to the Senate where it
was expected to pass easily in a vote expected to take place in September 2010. To that end, on
September 14, 2010, ahead of the actual vote in the upper chamber, Justice Minister Michele
Alliot-Marie said, "Our duty concerning such fundamental principles of our society is to speak with
one voice." Ultimately, the French Senate overwhelmingly passed the legislation with 246 votes to
1 in its favor. The main hurdle to the bill passing into law would be at the constitutional level where
it would undergo scrutiny via the French constitutional watchdog group. There, in the first week of
October 2010, France's constitutional court approved the law, which was now set to go into effect
in the spring of 2011.
Meanwhile, on September 7, 2010, more than a million people took to the streets across France to
join rallies in protest of the government's austerity measures, including reforms to the French
pension system. Of particular controversy has been the government's plan to raise the retirement
age in France from 60 to 62. While either 62 or 60 is still a lower retirement age than most
developed countries, the matter has nonetheless been a rallying cry for the political division
between left and right in the French political sphere. Indeed, French Labor Minister Eric Woerth,
who introduced the pension legislation in the country's National Assembly, warned that the entire
French system of pensions was a risk of collapse if reforms were not made. He said, "If we don't
modify our pension plan, then tomorrow there will be no money left to pay the French pensions."
Meanwhile, President Nicolas Sarkozy noted that an overhaul to the pension system was vital,
given France's aging population along with its budget deficit. The protest action, which included a
24-hour long national strike, caused disruptions across the country, including the closures of
schools and halted rail and flight services.
On September 23, 2010, another round of protests ensued in France -- this time attracting at least
one million protesters on the streets. The French Interior Ministry claimed that the protest
movement was losing momentum; however, the major unions insisted that the rally had gained
steam. Then again in mid-October 2010, further protests and strikes were taking place in France.
While police said that 1.2 million people participated in the demonstrations, French unions said that
3.5 million people were part of the mass action to protest the proposed pension reforms. Numbers
France Review 2016
France
aside, days later, protests and strikes were ongoing in France, with the transportation sector hardhit, schools closed, and gas stations closed. As well, shops were looted, cars were set ablaze and
clashes took place between police and protesters in Paris suburbs despite President Sarkozy's call
for calm. By October 21, 2010, youth protesters clashed with police in Lyon, forcing security
personnel to use tear gas and water cannons to disperse the crowds. Nevertheless, unions said they
would keep up their mass protest action, even warning that demonstrations, strikes and rallies
would continue on into November 2010, when the reform proposals at issue were expected to have
already passed into law.
To that latter end, the legislation to enact the pension reform plan was being debated and voted
upon in the Senate -- the upper chamber of the French parliament. The legislation --despite its
unpopularity among many ranks of society -- was expected to go forward. Now, a parliamentary
procedure -- known as the "guillotine" was being used to cut short the debate process, with an eye
on passage of the legislation within a tighter time frame. To that end, the French Senate soon
passed the motion by 177 votes to 153. In the last week of October, a joint committee composed
of Senate and National Assembly members were to work on a draft version of the legislation that
would reconcile the two versions of the bill emanating from those respective chambers, followed
by a vote on final passage of the reconciled legislation.
The French government was hoping that with pension reform passed into law, angry protests
would cease. However, even with little chance of changing the fate of the new pension law, unions
and protesters said that they would continue to launch mass protests until the legislation was
promulgated and written into statute books -- a process that could last until the middle of
November 2010.
For his part, President Sarkozy insisted that his job was to advance the cause of reform. To this
end, he said, "The biggest oversight would be to not do my job and to not ensure the financing of
retirement pensions for today and tomorrow." Nevertheless, the president was suffering from everplummeting job approval ratings, which as of late 2010 had dropped to a low of 30 percent.
On November 13, 2010, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon tendered his resignation, effectively
ending his government, and paving the way for an anticipated cabinet shuffle. According to Radio
France International, President Nicolas Sarkozy accepted Prime Minister Fillon's resignation. The
official statement read as follows: "Pursuant to Article 8 of the Constitution, Mr. Francois Fillon
presented to the president of the Republic the resignation of the government. The president has
accepted the resignation and thus terminated the functions of Mr. Francois Fillon." However,
President Sarkozy then named Fillon to form a new government with a fresh slate of cabinet
ministers.
The new cabinet was notably reduced in size from a total of 37 cabinet-rank positions to 22
ministers and eight secretaries of state. Several well-known members of the outgoing cabinet would
France Review 2016
France
not be returning with ministerial portfolios; these included Foreign Minister Bernard Kochner,
Ecology Minister Jean-Louis Borloo, and Labor Minister Eric Woerth. Meanwhile, at least two
well-known politicians would be returning to the executive branch of government, including former
Prime Minister Alain Juppe who would take on the Defense Ministry and Michele Alliot-Marie
who was set to become the new foreign minister. Newcomer Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet was
named to be ecology minister. Cabinet members securing their posts and continuing tenure in the
new cabinet included Economy Minister Christine Lagarde and Budget Minister Francois Baroin.
In late February 2011, as protests spread across the Arab world, Tunisia's "Jasmine Revolution"
was having a political effect in France when French Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie was
forced to resign from office. At issue was her close connection with the former regime of ousted
President Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali. Particular criticism was levied against Alliot-Marie for offering
to help that regime end the protest movement in Tunisia in the early stages of the so-called
"Jasmine Revolution." Alliot-Marie's political viability in the post of France's top diplomat came to
an end when it was revealed that she had taken a vacation in Tunisia during the time of the revolt
in Tunisia. It was soon announced that Defense Minister Alain Juppe would replace Alliot-Marie
with the foreign relations portfolio.
On April 11, 2011, France's controversial ban on Islamic face veils went into effect, sparking
protests by Muslim women who defied the law by wearing the prohibited Islamic "niqab" in front
of Paris' Notre Dame Cathedral. A number of arrests were made as a result of the protest action,
and those violating the law were subject to penalties including jail time for up to a year.
As discussed above, the law prohibits people from wearing veils anywhere in public and in 2010,
passed convincingly in France's lower house of parliament as well as the Senate. In October
2010, France's constitutional court approved the law, which -- as noted here -- finally went into
effect in April 2011.
While the legislation has been criticized by Muslim groups and human rights advocacy entities, the
measure was popular among French voters. In France, which is home to Europe's largest Muslim
population (five million), there has been increased anxiety about the erosion of the country's
secular legacy, which is regarded as the central value of modern French society. Accordingly, the
government has been keen to emphasize the need for integration of immigrant minorities. As well,
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, other backers of the bill, and feminist groups have pointed to
the fact that face-covering veils are emblematic of the oppression of women. Indeed, feminist
theorists have argued that the niqab (face veil) and burqa (body covering) are entry points to
attacks by extremists on women's rights, secularism and other core French values.
Special Report
France Review 2016
France
IMF Chief and prospective candidate for French presidency charged in New York on sex assault;
major implications for the leadership of the IMF and French political scene
Summary
On May 13, 2011, Dominique Strauss-Kahn -- the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
-- was charged with sexual assault by the New York Police Department (NYPD) over an alleged
attack on a hotel chambermaid. After appearing in court and initially being denied bail, the legal and
political implications for Strauss-Kahn began to intensify. Now facing serious criminal charges in
the United States, the future of Strauss-Kahn's once-promising political career looked bleak.
Forced to concentrate on his defense in court and under pressure from global leaders, StraussKahn resigned from the IMF leadership role, compelling various factions to try to fill the power
chasm. Meanwhile, French Socialists were left scrambling to consider how best to beat incumbent
President Nicolas Sarkozy in the 2012 elections now that their best hope had become embroiled in
this scandal across the Atlantic.
The Scandal
The hotel chambermaid at the center of the scandal said she was attacked by Strauss-Kahn while
going about her duties of cleaning his luxury suite at the Sofitel close to Times Square. The hotel
chambermaid said she thought the room was vacant at the time of her entry. She was allegedly
locked in the room where she endured sexual assault, but was able to subsequently escape from
the room and inform hotel staff, who called police. Meanwhile, Strauss-Kahn seemingly departed
the hotel in a hurry, packing most of his belongings but leaving behind a mobile phone. He
managed to get onto an Air France flight destined for Paris. However, just minutes before the flight
was set to take off, Strauss-Kahn was pulled off the jet by New York Port Authority, acting at the
behest of the NYPD. For her part, the hotel chambermaid was taken to the hospital and treated for
minor injuries.
In the first 24 hours after the incident, Strauss- Kahn was formally identified by the hotel maid in a
lineup and charged on three counts: a criminal sexual act, attempted rape, and unlawful
imprisonment relating to the incident involving a 32-year-old hotel chambermaid. Strauss-Kahn has
denied the charges. According to his lawyer, William Taylor, the IMF head was to appear in a New
York state court on May 16, 2011. Meanwhile, New York police were reportedly trying to acquire
search warrants to pursue DNA evidence related to the alleged crimes.
After appearing in court and being denied bail, due to the pronouncement that Strauss-Kahn was a
flight risk, he was remanded to jail. In fact, he was taken to Ricers Island jail, and housed away in
a separate cell from other prisoners at a unit intended to accommodate inmates with contagious
diseases. There, he was placed under suicide watch for precautionary reasons. His cell was
reported to contain a bed, a sink, and a toilet, and meals would be provided three times daily.
France Review 2016
France
Clearly, these accommodations were a far cry from the "$3,000 a night" luxury suite at the Sofitel
where he had been staying before attempting to depart New York for Paris.
Strauss-Kahn's defense team appeared to suggest that even if forensic DNA evidence was
discovered linking their client to the apparent victim, they might argue that the there was no
forcible encounter. That is to say, the defense team did not believe the evidence was supportive of
accusations of forcible sex. In fact, Benjamin Brafman, another of Strauss-Kahn's lawyers,
asserted that once all of the physical evidence was surveyed, his client would be exonerated.
The hotel chambermaid has been identified as an immigrant from Guinea with a teenage daughter.
With Strauss-Kahn's coterie moving to suggest that any interaction between the IMF head and the
chambermaid might be consensual, even intimating notions of a "setup" for political reasons, the
chambermaid engaged a lawyer, Jeffrey Shapiro, who made it clear that the young woman had "no
agenda" and was not even aware of Strauss-Kahn's position at the IMF. Shapiro said, "There is no
way in which there is any aspect of this event which could be construed consensual in any manner.
This is nothing other than a physical, sexual assault by this man on this young woman." He
continued, "It's not just my opinion that this woman is honest. The New York City Police
Department reached the same conclusion. This is a woman with no agenda."
Given the two sharply different approaches being taken by the two respective factions at the center
of this case, the legal battle could well turn into a nasty "he said; she said" conflict, so typical in
sexual assault cases with no third party witness. Should Strauss-Kahn be indicted and face trial, if a
future jury finds the IMF head guilty, then he could be subject to sentencing of between five to 25
years in prison.
For his part, Dominique Strauss-Kahn was thought to have a promising political career. Credited
for his stewardship of the IMF since the 2008 global financial crisis, and with his background as a
former minister of finance, Strauss-Kahn has been mentioned as a possible contender for the
French presidency on behalf of the Socialist Party against incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy.
That being said, Strauss-Kahn has been no newcomer to controversy. In 2008, the married
Strauss-Kahn was at the center of another scandal and censured for an "error of judgment" over a
consensual marital affair with a female staff member -- Hungarian-born economist Piroska Nagy.
Now, with the current scandal and legal battle emerging, attention was being refocused on StraussKahn's past conduct with women. Indeed, someone from Nagy's inner circle reportedly sent a
letter to the IMF warning the body of Strauss-Kahn's questionable behavior with regard to women.
An excerpt of that letter was published by the New York Times in conjunction with an account
claiming that Strauss-Kahn aggressively pursued Nagy.
Even Strauss-Kahn himself was aware that his behavior with women could come with risks. In an
April 2011 interview with the French publication, Liberation, Strauss-Kahn reportedly speculated
France Review 2016
France
that some rivals might seek to upset his political ambitions with attacks over "money, women and
my Jewishness," even suggesting that he might be set up with bogus rape claims. In regard to his
relationships with the opposite gender, Strauss-Kahn said: "Yes, I love women ... so what?"
By May 18, 2011, Strauss-Kahn had resigned from the IMF in order to concentrate on his defense
agenda. Strauss-Kahn released a statement that read as follows: "I want to say that I deny with the
greatest possible firmness all of the allegations that have been made against me." That being said,
on May 19, 2011, Strauss-Kahn was indicted on the aforementioned charges. That very day, the
Strauss-Kahn defense team renewed its request for bail for their client; to that end, the judge
granted Strauss-Kahn bail.
On May 23, 2011, the DNA examined on the clothes of the chambermaid at the Sofitel hotel was
reported to have matched that of the IMF chief, Strauss-Kahn. Further DNA tests were said to be
in the offing. For his part, Strauss-Kahn has maintained his innocence and has remained under
house arrest at an apartment in New York. He was expected to enter a formal plea on June 6,
2011.
Implications for the IMF
In Europe, Strauss-Kahn's absence would be felt since he was not able to attend a planned meeting
with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 15, 2011, and he would not be present at a
European Union finance ministers in Brussels scheduled for May 16, 2011, to deal with the rescue
packages for Greece and Portugal. As of mid-May, the IMF had not officially commented on
Strauss-Kahn's arrest, although the international body has made it clear that operations would
continue as ever, with John Lipsky acting as interim director. A spokeswoman for the IMF said,
"The IMF remains fully functioning and operational."
Still, calls were rising for Strauss-Kahn's resignation from the body, given the scope and salacious
nature of the scandal unfolding in the United States. Austria's finance minister, Maria Fekter, was
one notable voice urging Strauss-Kahn's resignation. She said: "Considering the situation, that bail
was denied, he has to figure out for himself that he is hurting the institution." United States
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner noted that Strauss-Kahn "is obviously not in a position to
run" the IMF -- a statement interpreted as soft support for a resignation from the IMF head.
Indeed, Geithner urged the IMF executive board to formally designate an interim head.
On May 18, 2011, as noted above, Strauss-Kahn did indeed officially resign from the IMF, in the
interests of the stability of the international body. Attention then switched to who might now lead
the IMF. Several voices were quick to lobby for the maintenance of a European at the helm.
Notably, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President Jose Manuel
Barroso urged this path amidst a growing clamor from the emerging powers of Brazil, Russia, India
and China -- the so-called "BRIC" nations -- for influence and ascendancy. Merkel was reported to
France Review 2016
France
have said: "Of course developing nations are within their rights in the medium term to occupy the
post of either IMF head or World Bank chief. But I think that in the current situation, with serious
problems with the euro and the IMF strongly involved, there is a lot in favor of a European
candidate being put forward." A spokesperson for Barroso struck a similar note saying it was "only
natural that the member states of the European Union, as the biggest contributor to the fund, agree
on a strong and competent candidate who can rally support from the IMF membership."
With British Prime Minister David Cameron nixing the idea of his nemesis, former Prime Minister
Gordon Brown, taking on the role of new IMF head, eyes were now on French Finance Minister
Christine Lagarde as a leading candidate.
The Political Implications
At home in France, Martine Aubry, the leader of France's Socialist Party, characterized news of
the arrest of Strauss-Kahn as a "thunderbolt." Clearly, the impact politically on the French Socialist
Party in France promised to be challenging.
Already, there were claims from some quarters of the French populace that the arrest and
accusations against Strauss-Kahn were part of a "setup operation," aimed at derailing the political
prospects of the French Socialists in the 2012 presidential election. Indeed, a poll released on May
16, 2011, indicated that the vast majority of French citizens surveyed believed that this was the
case. The French citizenry was also outraged at pictures showing Strauss-Kahn looking unshaven
and disheveled being taken to court and to jail. They regarded these visuals as an outrage -- likely
caused by the fact that such visuals are prohibited in the French legal system under that country's
interpretation of the presumption of "innocence until proved guilty."
That all being said, the Socialist Party was left in a state of disarray now that its top contender for
the presidency was now so damaged, and likely unavailable, to participate in a national election.
See "Update" below for more details.
Concluding Developments:
In late June 2011, France’s influential Finance Minister Christine Lagarde was selected to lead the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). The new IMF leader would be poised to lead one of the
world's most powerful international financial institutions at a time when debt crises were plaguing
various countries, including Greece, leading to fears of catastrophic default.
Note that the position of the head of the IMF became vacant in May 2011 when the former IMF
head, Dominique Strauss-Kahn resigned due to salacious legal charges against him in the United
States. Strauss-Kahn had been viewed as a presidential contender on behalf of the Socialist Party
and polling data ahead of the scandal showed him leading embattled French President Nicolas
France Review 2016
France
Sarkozy in hypothetical head-to-head match ups. Now, with Strauss-Kahn busy pursuing a legal
defense across the Atlantic, the Socialist Party was left in a state of disarray. But in a possibly shift
of winds for Strauss-Kahn at the close of June 2011, the New York Times was reporting that the
prosecutor's case against the former IMF chief was collapsing, potentially vindicating the
technocrat who insisted on his own innocence throughout. Indeed, the charges against StraussKahn were dropped by August 2011.
Special Report
The Greek debt crisis; effects on the euro zone, and the establishment of the European Financial
Stability Facility
In recent years, a debt crisis has beeraged across the euro zone countries of the European Union
(EU). In 2010, Greece stood as "ground zero" of the crisis, evoking deep anxieties about that
country defaulting on its debt. Anxieties also increased that a similarly disastrous fate could spread
to other EU member states, such as Portugal, Spain, Italy and even Ireland. These mostly
southern European economies were plagued not only by high deficits but also inherent structural
economic weakness, that could affect other countries in the euro zone in something of a contagion.
To stave off such a possibility, in 2010, the EU, in concert with the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), agreed on a euro stability package, aimed at preventing the Greek debt crisis from
deleteriously affecting other countries in the region. In addition, the European Central Bank (ECB)
was prepared to participate in exceptional market intervention measures, such as the purchase of
euro zone government bonds, for the purpose of shoring up the value and viability of the euro
currency.
A year later in 2011, the Greek debt crisis was ongoing and Athens was in negotiations with the EU
and the IMF to receive another tranche of its rescue package. Given the concerns about Greece's
"highly uncertain growth prospects," as well as the prevailing burden of debt servicing and ultimate
solvency, attention refocused on strategies to address the crisis. One option that surfaced was the
restructuring of Greece's debt. In addition, there was the need for subsequent rescue loans for
Greece.
In mid-July 2011, at an emergency euro zone summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel cast the
notion of another rescue package for Greece in some degree of doubt when she said that there
would be no "spectacular" measures aimed at resolving Greece's debt crisis, such as the
restructuring of Greek debt. The German chancellor made it clear that there needed to be a
concrete plan for a second Greek rescue package, if there was any hope that the debt crisis in that
country would be prevented from spreading across the euro zone. Ultimately, though, concurrence
was reached on July 21, 2011, with a rescue package plan. The plan provides for the Germanyendorsed position that private lenders, including banks, would have to do their part in contributing
France Review 2016
France
to the package. Any measures that would allow Greece easier repayment terms could be viewed
by credit rating agencies as acknowledgment that its borrowing was unsustainable -- and
therefore, "partial default."
Greece was not the only country affected by the debt crisis. Already Ireland was the recipient of a
rescue package and there was speculation that a second rescue package might be needed before the
country could be cleared to return to capital markets. In Italy, that country was also dealing
with economic challenges regarding stunted growth and an inability to reduce its dangerously high
debt-to-GDP ratios -- one of the worst in the euro zone at 120 percent. In Italy's case, the notion
of a rescue package was impossibly unaffordable, and raised expectation that Italy would not
escape default. Spain was in a similar situation and was hoping that its austerity program (like the
one being implemented in Italy) would help that country navigate its difficult economic waters.
General expectations were that Spain might barely escape default because its debt-to-GDP ratio -while poor -- was still better than that of Italy.
With the international community concerned about Europe's ability to solve its sovereign debt
crisis, and the fear of financial contagion spreading across highly-indebted fellow euro zone
member states, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were
scheduled to meet on Aug. 16, 2011. The two European leaders were expected to discuss the
situation and to work on effectively managing the euro zone. The decision for the two leaders to
meet came as financial markets reacted negatively to the climate of insecurity sweeping over
Europe. It was clear that investors had doubts about the ability of European governments to deal
with the debt crisis, despite the funding of several rescue packages to the most imperiled
economies of the euro zone.
Hopes for a comprehensive plan to address the situation were dashed after the meeting when the
two European leaders emerged from the meeting and stressed the need for "true economic
governance" for the euro zone. Merkel and Sarkozy championed closer economic and fiscal policy
in the euro zone, such as the notion of budget measures included in the constitutions of euro zone
member states. They called for a tax on financial transactions to raise more revenues. Investors
reacted to these declarations by deeming them insufficient, and with economic analysts dismissing
the plan as a missed opportunity. In fact, there had been warnings that Germany's demands for
austerity would do little to aid in the thrust for economic recovery across Europe.
By the close of September 2011, the Bundestag, or lower house of parliament in Germany
approved the expansion of a rescue fund for Europe's heavily indebted countries, known as the
European Financial Stability Facility. The issue has been an extremely contentious one, with the
participants of the global economy anxious for action to be taken in response to the debt crisis, but
with German stakeholders incensed that they would be the major contributors to the rescue fund
that would benefit countries, such as Greece. Indeed, the debt crisis in Europe has led to instability
in the international markets and political imbroglios across the euro zone.
France Review 2016
France
As Europe’s largest economy, Germany's ratification of the rescue fund for the euro zone was a
crucial step on the road to stabilization. The scenario evoked political ramification for German
Chancellor Angela Merkel; while Chancellor Merkel received the necessary support in the
parliament to approve the bailout fund, the measure left her ruling coalition weakened and could
well negatively affect her grip on power in Germany in the future.
Regardless of the domestic political ramifications, the German ratification of the expansion of the
expand the European Financial Stability Facility breathed necessary life into the euro stabilization
entity. With Austria and Finland also reaching agreements on the matter, only Slovakia was left to
approve the measure. In the case of Austria, the approval in that country's parliament came after
vituperative debate, with strong disapproval emanating from the right wing of that Austrian
parliament. In Finland, approval required more than debate for passage. Finland was seeking
collateral as security for its contribution to the euro zone bailout fund, which Greece -- as the main
beneficiary -- agreed to provide. With this agreement forged, Finland agreed to withdraw its
objections and move forward.
But concurrence on the expansion of the European Financial Stability Facility from Slovakia was
not expected to come easily. Instead, one member of the coalition government warned that it
would block approval in that country. In a nod to Slovaks who eschew the notion of a less
wealthy Central European country having to pay for the mistakes of the more wealthy Greeks, the
Freedom and Solidarity Party of Slovakia -- a participant in Prime Minister Radicova's coalition
government -- had promised to oppose the move. With Slovakia positioned to be the main holdout
in a scheme intended to stabilize the entire euro zone, there were high hopes for a compromise.
Nevertheless, on Oct. 11, 2011, the parliament of Slovakia voted down the euro zone bailout
expansion plan. Since the vote was also linked to a confidence motion, the center-right
government of Prime Minister Iveta Radicova was also toppled in the vote, making the Slovakian
government the latest political casualty in the economic debt crisis rocking Europe. A new vote
took place two days later, and with support from the left wing opposition, the proposed expansion
of the euro zone rescue fund was ratified, and a schedule for snap elections was secured.
Meanwhile, representatives of the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, and the
European Central Bank, were set to review Greece's progress in reducing debt levels, and to make
a decision on the release of the latest installment of bailout funds for that country. However,
before a decision could be made, the finance ministers from the euro zone put the metaphoric
"brakes" on the decision-making. After hours of talks in Luxembourg, the finance ministers from
the 17-nation euro zone urged Greece to take on greater austerity measures and warned that banks
in region should prepare for further challenges.
With a delay on the decision on releasing the latest tranche of bailout funds for Greece, it was yet
to be seen if the IMF, EU, and ECB would ultimately recommend the release of bailout funds for
Greece. Some deadlines of significance included mid-October 2011, when the decision would
France Review 2016
France
finally be made, and the actual release of funds to come (pending approval) at the close of October
2011. However, the current scenario suggested that Greece might not receive its needed
installment of rescue funds until November 2011.
In the background of these development have been fears that a Greek default could spark another
banking crisis. The sense of anxiety was only exacerbated by news that the Franco-Belgian bank,
Dexia, was in emergency talks, and that the credit ratings agency, Moody's, was considering
downgrading the bank due to exposure to Greek debt.
Should Greece fail to service its debt commitments, there would be deleterious effects for the euro
zone, European banks, and at the international level, there could be a seriously damaging influence
on the global economy. Chairman of the euro zone finance ministers (known as the euro group),
Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg, foreclosed the possibility of a debt default
by Greece, while simultaneously warning that Greece's private sector creditors should anticipate
further losses on their Greek sovereign debt holdings – indeed, greater than the 21 percent
"haircut" that was previously agreed upon months earlier.
It should be noted that there was a growing chorus of complaints about the slow and protracted
political response to the debt crisis and concomitant euro zone challenges, which was largely due to
the EU's institutional structure. As October 2011 entered its second week, French President
Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel were pledging to do whatever was
necessary to protect European banks from the debt crisis. That plan included the recapitalizing of
European banks. The two European leaders also agreed to a plan that would amend the euro
zone's operational structure to avoid the challenges detailed above. Notably, there would be
accelerated economic coordination in the euro zone. Moreover, President Sarkozy and Chancellor
Merkel concurred on addressing Greece's debt problems, and the need to restore market
confidence.
By the start of December 2011, the leaders of the two biggest players in the euro zone -- French
President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel -- issued a joint call for serious
changes to Europe’s governing treaties, aimed at ameliorated economic governance for the 17
countries that make up the euro currency bloc. French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor
Merkel met for talks on the matter in Paris as the euro zone countries continue to grapple with the
regional debt crisis, emanating from Greece but extending across the euro bloc.
Included in their proposal were: (1) the creation of a monetary fund for Europe, (2) automatic
penalties for countries that exceed European deficit limits, and (3) monthly meetings of European
leaders. The proposal entailed compromises by both European leaders. President Sarkozy had to
accept the notion of automatic sanctions for countries in violation of debt limit rules, while
Chancellor Merkel had to accept that the European Court of Justice will not be empowered with
the power of veto over budgets. Meanwhile, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which
was intended to replace the European Financial Stability Facility in 2013, would be advanced
France Review 2016
France
earlier in 2012.
President Sarkozy said that they were looking to March 2012 to complete negotiations on the new
treaty. Ideally, the new treaty would be ratified by all 27 member states of the European Union.
However, if concurrence at that level proved impossible, then the 17 states of the euro zone would
have to approve it. It should also be noted that European Council President Herman Van Rompuy
has said that tougher budget rules for the euro zone may not require changing any existing
European Union treaties. To that
President Sarkozy emphasized the imperative that such a crisis not re-emerge in the future. He
said, "We are conscious of the gravity of the situation and of the responsibility that rests on our
shoulders." For her part, Chancellor Merkel said her country, working in concert with France, was
"absolutely determined" to maintain a stable euro. She also advocated for "structural changes
which go beyond agreements."
While the new measures would certainly go a long way to addressing the issue of improved
economic governance in the euro zone, they did not deal with the question of how many euro zone
countries would deal with their debt challenges in a climate of low growth. Nevertheless, in the
short run, the steadfast and unified message of intent by the two European leaders was, at least.
expected to calm markets and facilitate lower borrowing costs for debt-ridden economies such as
Italy, Spain, and Portugal.
Meanwhile, on Dec. 5, 2011, the credit ratings agency, Standard and Poor's, placed the countries
of the euro zone on a "credit watch" with negative implications. Even power house economies of
Germany and France were included in the move, which presaged a downgrade to come in the
future. A day later, Standard and Poor's even warned that the euro zone bailout fund -- the
European Financial Stability Facility -- could lose its own AAA rating. These moves have raised
eyebrows across the world as regards the credibility of the ratings agency, which failed to warn the
world of the sub-prime meltdown in 2008 that ultimately let to the global financial crisis. There
were suggestions that this downgrade threat to euro zone countries, in conjunction with the
downgrade of the United States months earlier following a particularly ferocious debt ceiling debate
in that country, were evidence that the credit ratings agency was trying to "save face" by proving
its tougher standards at this time. However, Standard and Poor's newly-discovered hard-line
stance was being questioned by analysts, who pointed to the timing of the warning against euro
zone countries. Indeed, this warning came precisely at a time when France and Germany were
leading the charge in the European Union to solve the regional debt crisis, which has left the euro
vulnerable, risked fragmenting the currency union, and which could yet imperil the fragile global
economic recovery.
On Jan. 13, 2012, the credit ratings agency, Standard & Poor’s, stripped France of its sterling AAA
credit rating, relegating France to AA+ status. Another ratings agency, Moody's, however, moved
to maintain France's AAA rating, although it warned that France's deteriorating debt position
France Review 2016
France
placed pressure on the country's stable outlook. French authorities appeared to respond to the
news with equanimity.
French Finance Minister Francois Baroin said, "It's not good news, but it's not a catastrophe." He
also noted that the French government had no plans to enact either spending cuts or tax increases
in response to the downgrade. Finance Minister Francois Baroin said, "It's not ratings agencies that
decide French policy."
The ratings agency also downgraded Austria from its top notch AAA rating to AA+. The reduction
on Austria's rating was partially attributable to the fact that it exports to Italy which is dealing with
a recession, and that its banking subsidiaries in Hungary were facing losses.
Standard & Poor’s downgraded Italy two notches from A to BBB+ Spain was in somewhat better
shape than Italy although it was downgraded two notches from AA- to A. Slovakia was cut one
notch from A+ to A. Slovenia was also cut one notch from AA- to A+. Following this trend,
Malta was additionally cut one notch from A to A-.
Standard & Poor's, meanwhile, cut the credit of Portugal from BBB- to BB and Cyprus from
BBB to BB+ -- junk status in both cases.
Belgium held steady with an AA rating, Estonia had no change to its AA- rating, and there was no
shift from Ireland's BBB+ rating.
Germany, Finland, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands appeared to have escaped downgraded and
held on to their AAA ratings.
As regards the status of the euro zone, Standard & Poor's also downgraded the European Union
bailout fund -- the European Financial Stability Facility's (EFSF) -- from AAA to AA+. It should be
noted that the decision to downgrade the EFSF was in keeping with the collective downgrades of
individual European countries discussed above, since the rating is based on the ratings of the
countries that guarantee the bailout fund. Should the EFSF obtain additional guarantees, it could
recapture its AAA rating.
These developments made several countries the latest casualties in the ongoing sovereign debt
crisis affecting Europe, and particularly, the countries of the euro zone. For its part, Standard &
Poor's explained that it had taken these measures in response to the failed attempts by the leaders
of the euro zone to deal with the ongoing debt crisis. Standard & Poor's released a statement that
read as follows: "Today's rating actions are primarily driven by our assessment that the policy
initiatives that have been taken by European policy makers in recent weeks may be insufficient to
fully address ongoing systemic stresses in the euro zone."
The credit ratings agency went further and accused euro zone leaders of being unable to properly
France Review 2016
France
diagnose the causes of the crisis. Specifically, Standard & Poor's argued that the plan being
advanced by leaders of the euro zone -- to limit governments' future borrowing -- was based upon
an inaccurate understanding of the debt crisis. Standard & Poor's contention was that the
challenge was not so much excessive borrowing, as much as it involved trade deficits and a loss of
competitiveness by certain euro zone economies, including Italy and Spain.
Update -In December 2011, Former French President Jacques Chirac was found guilty of embezzlement.
The former French president faced trial on corruption-related allegations in September 2011.
Chirac, who served for 12 years as the French head of state, two terms as prime minister, and 18
years as mayor of Paris, had seen his reputation compromised as a result of these legal
complications. At issue were charges that during his tenure as Paris mayor, Chirac used the city
payroll to pay the salaries of aides and counselors who were his partisan supporters. Chirac
maintained that he wanted to clear his name, and hoped that his trial would transpire in the same
way as it would for any French citizen. That being said, he was suffering from health
complications, including a brain disorder, which could impact his presence in court. The former
French president faced the possibility of 10 years in jail and a fine of more than $100,000, if he
was ultimately found guilty of embezzlement and breach of trust. By Dec. 15, 2011, former
French President Chirac had been found guilty of embezzling funds and received a two-year
suspended prison sentence.
As the former French leader faced legal charges, France's Socialists were embroiled in a leadership
fight, with the ultimate goal being the defeat of Chirac's successor, President Nicolas Sarkozy of
the Union for a Popular Movement or UMP.
In the autumn of 2011, France's Socialists were embroiled in a leadership fight, with the ultimate
goal being the defeat of Chirac's successor, President Nicolas Sarkozy of the Union for a Popular
Movement or UMP, in forthcoming presidential elections.
For some time, Sarkozy, who was suffering from abysmally low approval ratings, was seen as
politically vulnerable. Former director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Dominique
Strauss-Kahn, was viewed as the Socalists' best chance to capture the presidency. However,
Strauss-Kahn in May 2011 became embroiled in a sexual assault scandal in the United States.
That situation forced Strauss-Kahn to resign from his post at the IMF to attend to his legal woes,
and certainly left him little chance of pursuing political aspirations.
At home in France, Martine Aubry, the leader of France's Socialist Party, characterized news of
the arrest of Strauss-Kahn as a "thunderbolt. Aubry struck the politically astute cord as party
leader, calling for unity. Speaking before the media following a crisis meeting, she said: "Unity,
France Review 2016
France
responsibility, combativeness, these are the three words which came up the most this morning.
There was emotion, of course, and the shock we all feel, but it is our responsibility to be up to the
task. I say to the French people: we will be ready in 2012."
There were claims from some quarters of the French populace that the arrest and accusations
against Strauss-Kahn were part of a "setup operation," aimed at derailing the political prospects of
the French Socialists in the 2012 presidential election. Indeed, a poll released on May 16, 2011,
indicated that the vast majority of French citizens surveyed believed that this was the case. The
French citizenry was also outraged at pictures showing Strauss-Kahn looking unshaven and
disheveled being taken to court and to jail. They regarded these visuals as an outrage -- likely
caused by the fact that such visuals are prohibited in the French legal system under that country's
interpretation of the presumption of "innocence until proved guilty."
Clearly, the impact politically on the French Socialist Party in France promised to be challenging, as
the party was left in a state of disarray with a presidential race in the offing. Even though the
charges against Strauss-Kahn were eventually dropped, it was clear that he was "damaged goods"
politically, and the question of who would be the Socialists' standard bearer in 2012 remained an
open question.
With the void in the Socialist Party to be filled, there were some calls for party leader, Aubry, to
enter the presidential primary. While polling data had shown Strauss-Kahn well-positioned to
handily unseat incumbent President Sarkozy, it was not known if Aubry would have the same
effect. Sometimes characterized as less than charismatic, Aubry has been a veteran on the French
political scene as the author of France's 35-hour work week. Another option for the Socialists was
former party leader, Francois Hollande, who despite his lack of governing experience had the kind
of political chops and campaign skills necessary to compete in a potentially contentious presidential
race. Polling data showed more support for Hollande over Aubry in the primary race among the
Socialists' faithful.
By mid-September 2011, the leadership race within the French Socialist Party was underway with
primary election contenders facing once another at a televised debate. Among the contenders were
the aforementioned front runners -- Aubry and Hollande, with the latter maintaining his polling
advantage. Also contesting the primary election were Segolene Royal, the Socialist presidential
candidate who was defeated by Sarkozy in 2007, Arnaud Montebourg, Manuel Valls, and JeanMichel Baylet. During the debate, all six contenders for the Socialists' leadership position avoided
attacking each other and targeted Sarkozy instead.
Note that as of October 2011, the first round of the French Socialists' leadership contest, which
was open to all French citizens with leftist political orientations, ended with Hollande and Aubry in
the top spots. The major casualty of the first round was the Socialists' 2007 presidential candidate,
Royal, who took only seven percent -- less than Montebourg, who obtained a surprise 17 percent
of the votes cast and a third place finish. With Hollande securing 39 percent and Aubry acquiring
France Review 2016
France
31 percent, and with neither of them taking a majority, a second round would have to be held to
determine the ultimate winner.
On Oct. 16, 2011, with the votes counted in the second round of the Socialists' primary contest, it
was confirmed that Hollande had won the most votes and would be contesting the 2012
presidential contest. Hollande reportedly secured 56 percent of the vote share against Aubry with
44 percent. Aubry wasted no time in conceding defeat and expressing solidarity with her follow
Socialists in the fight to win the presidency in the anticipated 2012 election. Aubry enthusiastically
said that wished "to warmly salute the victory of Francois Hollande" and called for party unity
"around our candidate." For his part, Hollande promised to champion the demands of the French
citizenry who could "no longer bear" President Sarkozy's policies.
Survey data measuring the intentions of voters in the 2012 presidential race showed that
incumbent President Sarkozy was polling in third place -- even behind far-right leader Marine Le
Pen. As such, Sarkozy's priority was to defeat Le Pen in the first round and then to beat the
Socialist candidate (Hollande) who would ultimately be on the ballot. This would be a difficult task,
given the fact that Sarkozy's most generous approval ratings showed him in the 30-40 percent
range among the French citizenry.
The 2010 regional elections was something of a warning to him with his ruling center-right UMP
suffering massive defeat at the polls. That election outcome was regarded as a repudiation of the
reform policies undertaken by President Sarkozy and the UMP government since coming to power.
The combination of high unemployment and the public's furor over changes to the pension system
appeared to be driving the mass discontent. No doubt Sarkozy was hoping 2012 would signal
increased support for him and for his party.
President Sarkozy could potentially be helped by the news that his Italian-born wife, Carla BruniSarkozy, was expecting a child. The human interest and wholesome family oriented aspect of this
news -- especially juxtaposed against the scandal unfolding for the Socialists' top contender -- could
potentially inflate Sarkozy's popularity ratings, if only for a temporary period. It was yet to be seen
how President Sarkozy's fortune in 2012 would be affected by events unfolding in 2011 in France.
Note that French voters went to the polls on Sept. 25, 2011 to vote in elections to the Senate. At
stake were the seats in the 348-seat legislative body. In the previous 2008 elections, the ruling
UMP won the plurality of seats (151 in total). It was to be seen if the UMP would hold onto
power, or, if the result would point to a decline in dominance. To that end, the result showed a
historic victory for France's left-wing opposition, which won the majority of seats in the Senate
for the first time in recent history. Indeed, the Socialist Party, along with its Communist and Green
allies, secured a total of 177 seats, and control over the in the upper chamber of parliament for
the first time since the birth of the Fifth Republic in 1958. The election outcome constituted a
clear setback for the embattled ruling party, not to mention President Nicolas Sarkozy.
France Review 2016
France
Note that on Oct. 1, 2011, the French upper house of parliament elected its first left-wing
president in more than 50 years. Socialist Jean-Pierre Bel would now lead the Senate and marked
the end of the reign of the right-wing UMP in the upper house for over half a century.
The French left-wing opposition was hailing its election success as a sign of things to come in the
impending French presidential elections, and a repudiation of embattled French President Sarkozy
and his policies of socio-economic reform. To this end, Jean-Pierre Bel, head of the Socialists in
the Senate, said, "The results of this Senate election represent a real comeuppance for the right."
Francois Hollande, a prospective candidate of the Socialists in the presidential election to come,
was quick to point out the weakness of President Sarkozy at the helm of the UMP saying, "Nicolas
Sarkozy will go down in history as the president who lost the right its majority in the Senate." As
discussed above, President Sarkozy was suffering from significantly low approval ratings, made
more acute by general dissatisfaction over high unemployment, deficit woes, and weak economic
recovery, all of which were exacerbated by ongoing financial challenges within the euro zone . The
election result in the Senate could in some senses be regarded as a referendum on his leadership,
with the outcome indicating a negative assessment of the president and the ruling UMP.
Sarkozy's political fate would not be helped by a corruption scandal, known as the Karachi affair,
which implicated some of his close allies. The Karachi affair goes back close to two decades and
involved three of Sarkozy's stalwarts. At issue were allegations that the three individuals received
kickbacks to secure the sale of three submarines to Pakistan in 1994, and used the money to
finance the presidential campaign of former Prime Minister Edouard Balladur in 1995. Although
Sarkozy has said that he was unaware of the situation, the matter could taint his already less than
stellar political prospects.
Before the aforementioned leadership contest, the conventional wisdom was that the Socialists
could themselves be hurt by internal fissures as the candidates vied for supremacy. Should the left
go into the presidential race without a sense of political unity, the beneficiary would obviously be
incumbent President Sarkozy. That being said, as discussed above, by mid-October 2011, the
Socialists seemed prepared to close ranks around the primary winner, Francois Hollande, in the
hopes that he would unseat Sarkozy and claim the highest post in France in 2012.
Special Entry: Violence in France
On March 19, 2012, a gunman shot four people to deaths at a Jewish school in Toulouse.
Included in the dead were three children and a teacher. The gunman's use of a motorcycle to carry
out these murders was linked to the deaths of two soldiers of African origin a week earlier on
March 11, 2012. French security forces were carrying out a manhunt in search of the gunman
believed to be responsible for these collective murders. In the meanwhile, France was suffering
from a national trauma, resulting in all presidential candidates suspending the election campaign,
France Review 2016
France
despite the fact that the first election round was set to take place a month later.
Thanks to a tip to French police by an employee at a motorcycle store, the shooter was identified
as Mohamed Merah -- a radical Islamist of Algerian origin. A lengthy siege lasting about 32 hours
followed just outside Merah's apartment in Toulouse. In an attempt to drive Merah from the
building, French police set off a number of explosions during the siege. Ultimately, the siege ended
when police officers flung grenades into the apartment and stormed the premises. Merah -- the
suspect -- was shot to death by a sniper as he fired at officers and attempted to jump from a
window. Two officers were reported wounded in the incident. French authorities said that Merah
had been armed with a Kalashnikov high-velocity rifle, a mini-Uzi machine pistol, several
handguns and possibly grenades.
Before his death, Merah identified himself as an al-Qaida militant who received terrorist training in
Pakistan's Waziristan region and had traveled to Afghanistan. Merah said he had acted in order to
"avenge Palestinian children" and to protest French military interventions overseas. French
authorities concluded that he was a so-called "lone wolf" with violent and extremist tendencies.
Christian Etelin, a lawyer who once acted on behalf Merah for robbery charges, said of his former
client: "There was his religious engagement, an increasing hatred against the values of a democratic
society and a desire to impose what he believes is truth."
By March 25, 2012, French authorities arrested and charged Abdelkader Merah -- the brother of
the now-deceased Mohamed Merah -- of complicity in murder and terrorism. Abdelkader Merah
was said to be in the custody of France's domestic intelligence agency. His lawyer, Anne-Sophie
Laguens, said that her client "strongly condemned" Mohamed Merah's actions and did not wish to
become a scapegoat.
It should be noted that peaceful demonstrations were reported in Toulouse as well as the French
capital city of Paris, with participants in the thousands calling for national unity as well as religious
and cultural tolerance in the aftermath of the deadly shootings.
Editor's Economic Note:
Note that from 2008 through 2012, Europe has been plagued by a debt crisis, with particularly
deleterious effects for euro zone countries. See the Special Report above, as well as the Special
Entries contained in the Economic Conditions of this Country Review, for detailed information
about this scenario.
Primer on 2012 Presidential Elections in France
France Review 2016
France
April 22, 2012; May 6, 2012 -* Note that some parts of this primer include references from the material above*
Summary:
Francois Hollande defeated incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy in the second round of the
French presidential election on May 6, 2012. French voters went to the polls on April 22, 2012, to
cast their ballots in the first round of the country's presidential election. Socialist candidate Francois
Hollande performed in line with pre-election polling data and captured the plurality of the vote
share with 28 percent. Incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy secured 26 percent. The candidates
of the far right, Marine Le Pen, and the hard left, Melachon, garnered third and fourth place
finishes respectively. Centrist candidate Bayrou took fifth place. These results pit Hollande against
Sarkozy in a second round for the presidency that was set to take place on May 6, 2012. Sarkozy
was hoping to attract far right voters to his fold, with an eye on holding the presidency for another
term. Hollande was hoping to consolidate the left in the second round, propelling him to ultimate
victory. On May 6, 2012, voter turnout was reported to be high at approximately 80 percent. The
vote count was close with Hollande taking 52 percent and Sarkozy acquiring 48 percent.
Accordingly, Hollande became the first Socialist to become president of France since François
Mitterrand left office in 1995. On the other side of the equation, Sarkozy secured the dubious
distinction of becoming the first French president to lose a bid for re-election in more than 30
years. Indeed, Sarkozy's defeat was something of a significant end to the ascendancy of
conservative politics in Europe in recent times. Hollande was scheduled to be inaugurated as the
new president of the French republic later in May 2012. He would also be charged with forming a
new government. A parliamentary election would follow in June 2012.
In detail:
Presidential elections were to be held in France in 2012. A first round was scheduled to take place
on April 22, 2012, with a second round to ensue on May 6, 2012
President Nicolas Sarkozy, the center-right leader of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement or
UMP, was seeking a second successive term in office. But the 2010 regional elections served as
something of a warning to him with his ruling center-right UMP suffering massive defeat at the
polls. That election outcome was regarded as a repudiation of the reform policies undertaken by
President Sarkozy and the UMP government since coming to power. The combination of high
unemployment and the public's furor over changes to the pension system appeared to be driving
the mass discontent. No doubt Sarkozy was hoping 2012 would signal increased support for him
and for his party.
President Sarkozy could potentially be helped by the news that his Italian-born wife, Carla BruniSarkozy, was expecting a child. The human interest and wholesome family-oriented aspect of this
France Review 2016
France
news -- especially juxtaposed against the scandal unfolding for the Socialists' top contender
(Dominique Strauss-Kahn) -- may have potentially inflated Sarkozy's popularity ratings, if only for
a temporary period. But Sarkozy's political fate would not be helped by a corruption scandal,
known as the Karachi affair, which implicated some of his close allies. The Karachi affair goes
back close to two decades and involved three of Sarkozy's stalwarts. At issue were allegations that
the three individuals received kickbacks to secure the sale of three submarines to Pakistan in 1994,
and used the money to finance the presidential campaign of former Prime Minister Edouard
Balladur in 1995. Although Sarkozy has said that he was unaware of the situation, the matter could
taint his already less than stellar political prospects.
One of Sarkozy's rivals within his own party, former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin
said he would also be contesting the elections as an independent candidate. De Villepin quit the
UMP has been known to have a contentious relationship with Sarkozy. It was unlikely that De
Villepin would win the presidency, however, he could secure enough votes from the center-right
members of the electorate to endanger Sarkozy's hopes of making it to a second round. Ultimately,
though, De Villepin was not on the final ballot.
Sarkozy's main rival on the right side of the political spectrum would be far-right, anti-immigration,
candidate Marine Le Pen of National Front. While Le Pen's extremist stance was not expected to
help her secure ultimate victory, she was hoping to secure her name on the ballot in the second
round. Her father, Jean Marie Le Pen, gained a fourth place finish in the 2007 elections -- not an
unimpressive result for a candidate with a radical platform.
Yet another aspirant to the presidency was the centrist politician and the head of the Democratic
Movement, Francois Bayrou, who would again attempt to win the presidency. Bayrou promised to
wage a "campaign of truth." In the 2007 election, Bayrou achieved a respectable third place finish.
The far left would be represented by Jean-Luc Melenchon of the Left Front, Nathalie Arthaud of
the Communist/Trotskyist Workers Struggle, and Philippe Poutou of the New Anti-capitalists.
Jacques Cheminade would represent the so-called "Gaullist left"; the French Green Party would be
represented by Eva Joly. Also on the ballot would be Nicolas Dupont-Aignan of Arise the Republic
(a Gaullist off-shoot of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement or UMP).
Of course, no discussion of the impending French election would be complete without the inclusion
of Francois Hollande, the person who won the nomination of the French Socialists in the aftermath
of the controversy involving the former head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique
Strauss Kahn. Hollande won the Socialists' primary election against Martine Aubry and quickly
enjoyed the support of a united Socialist Party, that had its eye on the Elysee Palace -- especially in
the aftermath of a historic victory months earlier when the Socialists ousted the UMP and won
control of the upper house of parliament for the first time in over half a century. At the time of his
nomination victory, Hollande promised to champion the demands of the French citizenry who
could "no longer bear" President Sarkozy's policies.
France Review 2016
France
Survey data earlier in 2011 measuring the intentions of voters in the 2012 presidential race showed
that incumbent President Sarkozy was polling in third place -- even behind far-right leader Marine
Le Pen. As such, Sarkozy's priority was to defeat Le Pen in the first round and then to beat the
Socialist candidate (Hollande) who would ultimately be on the ballot. This would be a difficult task,
given the fact that Sarkozy's most generous approval ratings showed him in the 30-40 percent
range among the French citizenry.
Meanwhile, polling data in October 2011 was showing Hollande positioned to beat incumbent
Sarkozy with 35 percent votes versus 25 percent for the incumbent president. Le Pen was in third
place with 16 percent. In December 2011, with Villepin in the race, Socialist Hollande had 31.5
percent, Sarkozy was holding steady with 26 percent, Le Pen had dropped to 13.5 percent, and
Villepin had one percent. By January 2012, polls continued to show Sarkozy headed for defeat. He
and far-right National Front Leader, Le Pen, were splitting the conservative vote, while the
Socialists' candidate, Hollande, was maintaining his lead. In February 2012, polling data showed
Hollande maintaining a clear advantage although there were many undecided voters to court.
Faced with the prospect of defeat, Sarkozy said he would leave politics. According to a report by
Radio France Internationale, Sarkozy said, "I'd rather be a Carmelite monk than carry on in politics
if I lose. Whatever happens, I'm at the end of the road. For the first time in my life, I'm confronted
with the end of my career." That being said, on Feb. 16, 2012, Sarkozy announced his official reelection bid and commenced his election campaign. He also announced a package of economic
reforms intended to spur employment and job training, and additionally adopted a populist tone
that appeared to be resonating with the public. It was to be seen if the political battle would help
raise Sarkozy's prospects.
The immediate results appeared to be positive with polling data at the end of February 2012
showing the incumbent president increasing support ahead of the election. In fact, polling data from
Ifop gave Hollande only a two percent advantage over Sarkozy. As well, a CSA opinion poll placed
Sarkozy just one percent behind Hollande. According to the survey, Hollande would garner about
28 percent of votes in the first round of elections in April 2012, while Sarkozy would win 27
percent. However, Hollande was still on track to ultimately win the presidency in the second round
to be held in May 2012, when the left wing voting constituencies would not be subject to
fragmentation (as per the first round). At the close of February 2012, Sarkozy's main challenge
would be to ensure that he survived the first round and would be on the ballot in the second round
against Hollande.
By the first week of March 2012, Sarkozy was arguing that France was home to too many
foreigners and that the system intended to integrate immigrants into French society was working
badly. The French president made these remarks during a televised debate in which he promised to
reduce the number of immigrants entering the country by at least half. This position appeared
geared toward consolidating the right-wing vote for which he was competing with far right
France Review 2016
France
candidate, Le Pen. Both Sarkozy and Le Pen were appealing to a certain hard line base of the
citizenry. While Le Pen was a known xenophobe, Sarkozy's positions were regarded as a
somewhat more tactical pattern intended to shore up his conservative credentials. To this end,
Sarkozy had already implemented controversial policies to deport Roma (gypsies) and now, he was
extending his rightward shift by promising limits to immigration and criticizing the notion of
multiculturalism in France. Casting himself as the protector of French identity, Sarkozy said, "We
have to consider our holidays, the church and cathedral towers in our villages and towns, our
eating habits, our morality, as aspects of our civilization not just our religion: the civilization of the
French Republic...Those who come with the intention of not respecting our laws and our customs,
of not respecting the property of others, of not sending their children to school, of not making an
effort at integration, they are not welcome on French soil."
In March 2012, it would seem that these tactics were helping Sarkozy make it to the second round
of the election. In one poll, Sarkozy had about 28 percent of the vote in the first round -- only a
couple of percentage points behind Hollande, and significantly ahead of Le Pen, who had about 15
percent. Another survey, Sarkozy outpaced Hollande with 28.5 percent against Hollande with 27
percent. Indeed, it was clear that Sarkozy's right-ward drift toward anti-immigrant rhetoric was
yielding positive results for him by consolidating the hard line constituencies.
However, these tactics were simultaneously ensuring that Socialist leader Hollande would win the
second round and the presidency. A poll by CSa showed Hollande widening his lead over Sarkozy
to win decisively by 54 percent to 46 percent in a second round of voting. A BVA showed even
more discouraging results -- Sarkozy with only 41 percent against Hollande with 59 percent in the
runoff. A survey by Ifop gave Hollande 54.5 percent over Sarkozy with 45.5 percent. Votes for far
left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon (who has variously polled between one and ten percent) were
expected to go to Hollande in the second round.
On March 19, 2012, the presidential campaign was overshadowed by the shooting deaths of four
people -- including three children -- at a Jewish school in Toulouse. The gunman was also believed
to be responsible for the shooting deaths of three French soldiers of African origin. The national
trauma resulted in all presidential candidates suspending the election campaign. Ultimately, the
shooter, who was identified as Mohamed Merah -- a radical Islamist of Algerian origin -- was shot
to death by a sniper after a lengthy siege in Toulouse. It was not known how the incident would
affect the presidential race, once resumed. There were some suggestions that the far-right
candidate, Le Pen, might benefit from the public outrage. On the other hand, Sarkozy's recent drift
into anti-immigration rhetoric might also find some resonance. Certainly, at the close of March
2012, Sarkozy was enjoying improved favorability to ratings that could well improve his
performance at the polls, if this trend proved to be sustainable.
By the first week of April 2012, with only weeks to go until the first round of the election,
campaigning had resumed and attention was on the economic prescription for the country.
President Sarkozy has campaigned on his record of economic stewardship at a time when Europe
France Review 2016
France
and the euro zone specifically have been beset by challenges. He accused his Socialist rival,
Hollande, of promising to increase spending without specifying the source of such funds. Sarkozy
also warned that Hollande's economic ideas would plunge France into a debt crisis similar to those
plaguing Greece and Spain, saying that the Socialist leader acts "as if the world did not exist,
Europe did not exist, the crisis did not exist."
Hollande's economic advisers have dismissed such claims, noting that Greece indulged in serial
deceit regarding its debts, while Spain's financial woes were derived from the housing bubble and
private credit issues, and not government spending. For his part, Hollande has promised to balance
the budget by the end of a five-year mandate; his economic plan would raise $37.9 billion in new
revenue while increasing spending by $26.1 billion. To this end, Holland has vowed to raise taxes
on large corporations and the wealthiest citizens. Hollande additionally advanced an employment
plan aimed at hiring more teachers and police, and at creating state-aided jobs to address the
problem of massive youth unemployment.
In the second week of April 2012, attention remained on economic policies in the French
presidential campaign with President Sarkozy promising not to raise taxes if he won a second term
while also addressing the deficits and debt. During an interview with France Info radio, he warned
against a "massive crisis of confidence" if France missed its deficit target. Such an end was
imminent, Sarkozy intimated if his Socialist rival Hollande, won the right to reside at Elysee Palace.
But Hollande has taken a different approach to the economic woes facing the nation and the euro
bloc. He has promised to re-open negotiations over the European budgetary stability pact with the
objective of emphasizing economic growth over austerity.
As of mid-April 2012, a week ahead of the first round of the presidential election in France, a
record number of voters said they remained undecided about their voting choice. In fact, Radio
France Internationale reported that 29 percent of voters were not sure which candidate they would
vote for on election day. Turnout could be reduced by the fact that a portion of the undecided
voters might simply opt not to cast ballots on that day.
Nevertheless, polling data showed that among decided voters, Sarkozy's increasing favorability was
short-lived and once again Hollande had a clear lead. Sarkozy was hoping that hard-left candidate
Jean-Luc Melenchon, who was now seeing a bump in the polls to double-digit territory, would take
votes away from Hollande. A CSA poll, however, showed that Hollande was poised to secure 29
percent of the votes in the first round, while Sarkozy's support would sit around 24 percent . Far
right candidate of the National Front, Marie Le Pen, would garner 17 percent in the first round of
the vote, while Jean-Luc Melenchon from the Left Front and Francois Bayrou from MoDem
would gain 15 percent and 10 percent, respectively. In the second and decisive runoff election,
Hollande was on track to win by landslide with about 58 percent of the vote share, while Sarkozy
would likely take 42 percent. Clearly, Le Pen's voters were more likely to go to Sarkozy in the
second round, while Hollande would benefit from the now-undivided left and center-left voting
France Review 2016
France
constituencies.
Final polling data just ahead of the elections gave Hollande an advantage of a few percentage
points ahead of Sarkozy. As reported by CNN, Hollande had the support of 28 percent of voters
while Sarkozy had 25 percent.
First Round Results -On April 22, 2012 -- voting day for the first round of the French presidential elections -- was
marked by high voter turnout. Estimates were that 80 percent of the electorate turned out to vote
in the first round of the elections. After the closure of polling stations, and with the votes counted,
it was clear that the final polling data was accurate. Indeed, French Socialist candidate Hollande
captured the plurality of the vote share and close to 29 percent of the votes. Center-right UMP
candidate, incumbent President Sarkozy, secured 27 percent. It was the first time a sitting French
president placed second in the first round of voting. That being said, the main surprise of election
day was the strong showing of far right candidate, Le Pen, who took third place and over 18
percent of the vote share. Hard left candidate Jean-Luc Melanchon secured a fourth place finish
and 11 percent. Centrist Francois Bayrou was in fifth place with nine percent -- half the amount of
support he received in 2007. Bayrou's result suggested that French politics had become far more
polarized in recent years, making it more difficult for a centrist to make inroads with the electorate.
Certainly, the advance of the far right and Le Pen was evidence of this trend, as was the resonance
of the messages from the various leftist parties.
The result meant that no one candidate garnered an absolute majority. Accordingly, a second round
contest was in the offing on May 6, 2012. The contenders -- as expected -- would be the
candidates of the ruling UMP and the Socialists. Stated differently, the second round election
would be a Sarkozy versus Hollande contest. Given the strong performance of the far right with Le
Pen taking close to 19 percent, Sarkozy's stalwarts were expressing confidence that they could pull
off ultimate victory in the first week of May 2012. They were, of course, assuming that the far
right vote in the first round would default to the center-right option -- the incumbent president -- in
the second round. The assumption of victory for Sarkozy, though, might be premature as Hollande
would likely benefit from a consolidated left wing vote share in the second round. Certainly,
Melanchon's supporters would find a more natural home with Socialist Hollande than with the likes
of Sarkozy.
For his part, Hollande thanked his supporters saying, "I want to thank warmly the voters who,
through their votes, have placed me in this position. This is an act of trust of confidence in my
[positions] that I have presented to the French people." Hollande also said he was "best placed to
become the next president of the republic." He also addressed observers anxious about the
economic direction as he said, "My final duty, and I know I'm being watched from beyond our
borders, is to put Europe back on the path of growth and employment."
France Review 2016
France
Meanwhile, Sarkozy said the election expressed the anxieties of the French citizenry during a time
of crisis, and that he understood their concerns at a time when France was "in crisis." Sarkozy also
advocated participation in three debates ahead of the second round, saying: "The French people
have the right to truth and clarity. Everyone will be able to make their choice with full knowledge."
As well, his UMP party presaged a "new battle" at the start of the campaign to the second round.
Onward to the Second Round -Le Pen claimed that "the battle of France has only just begun," and that her party, the antiimmigration National Front, constituted "the only opposition" to the left. Taking that assertion to
the next level, Le Pen said that she would be casting an empty ballot in the second round, but
released her supporters to vote their conscience. This move delivered a clear message to Sarkozy
that her base was not going to be easily available to him in the voting booth in the run-off vote.
On the other side of the equation, leftist Melenchon wasted no time in shifting his support to
Hollande. Indeed, he passionately urged his supporters to rally behind Hollande in the second
round, saying: "I call on you to meet again on 6th May, without demanding anything in exchange,
on 6th May to beat Sarkozy. I ask you to mobilize yourselves as if it was a case of making me
president.”
The leader of the Greens, Eva Joly, also joined Melanchon in urging party supporters to switch
their allegiance to Hollande in the second round, with an eye on defeating Sarkozy. She said: "We
have to do everything to ensure that our country get out from Sarkozysme."
Hollande and Sarkozy soon resumed their campaigns, with rallies in the offing.
For his part, even with Le Pen offering him no assistance, Sarkozy was on the campaign trail
attempting to woo right-wing voters. His policy initiatives included proposals championed by Le
Pen's National Front, including aggressive national identity and immigration moves, as well as
legislation offering broader license for police pursuing suspects. That said, Sarkozy stopped short
of endorsing any kind of operational deal that would offer Le Pen's party ministerial positions or
assistance in the forthcoming parliamentary polls.
Hollande was taking a different approach and adopting a populist tone as he railed against
predatory financial institutions at a time when the country was dealing with economic challenges.
The Socialist candidate was also embracing the left-wing in a fulsome manner by suggesting that he
was open to an alliance with the Communist-backed Left Front in the forthcoming parliamentary
elections against the right wing. Moreover, Hollande assumed an air of confidence as he declared in
an interview with France 2 Television, "All the conditions are there for a win... The momentum is
with us."
Days ahead of the run-off vote, a TNS-Sofres poll showed Hollande with a 10-point lead ahead of
France Review 2016
France
Sarkozy; CSA showed an only slightly closer race with Hollande at 54 percent and Sarkozy with
46 percent. Should the polling numbers prove to be predictive, Sarkozy was on course to become
the first French president to lose a bid for re-election in more than 30 years.
Sarkozy's fate was not helped by the decision of centrist, Bayrou, to vote for Hollande in the
second round. Bayrou, who served in the French cabinet with Sarkozy in the 1990s, said that he
would cast a ballot for the Socialist candidate because he was uncomfortable with Sarkozy's drift
to the right during the election campaign. He explained, "I, personally, will vote for Francois
Hollande. After a good result in the first round, Nicolas Sarkozy set off in chase of an extreme
right within which we do not recognize our values and in which our deepest and most precious
beliefs are battered and denied."
Election Results -On election day -- May 6, 2012 -- voter turnout was reported to be high at approximately 80
percent. After the polls closed and votes were counted, it was clear that François Hollande swept
to victory, beating incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy to become France's next head of state.
The vote count was close with Hollande taking 52 percent and Sarkozy acquiring 48 percent.
Accordingly, Hollande became the first Socialist to become president of France since François
Mitterrand left office in 1995. As of 2012, he would become the only left-leaning leader of a major
European country at this time. On the other side of the equation, Sarkozy secured the dubious
distinction of becoming the first French president to lose a bid for re-election in more than 30
years. Indeed, it was only the second time that an incumbent French president lost his re-election
since the start of the Fifth Republic in 1958. In 1981, Valery Giscard d'Estaing lost the election of
that year to Mitterrand. Now, in 2012, Sarkozy's defeat was something of a significant end to the
ascendancy of conservative politics in Europe in recent times.
Going Forward -All attention would shift towards the policy of economic austerity in the euro zone, which has been
championed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and supported by outgoing French President
Sarkozy, but which would now be reconsidered by an incoming President Hollande. Indeed, the
focus would now move towards not only cutting spending but also growing the French economy
and dealing with unemployment. Talks between Merkel and Hollande were anticipated in short
order. That discussion promised to be difficult. Although Merkel congratulated Hollande on his
victory, she warned that the European treaty on budget discipline was "not up for grabs." Of
course, Hollande had championed the renegotiation of the fiscal compact as part of his election
campaign.
Relations with the United States were expected to be less tricky for France. Whereas United States
President Barack Obama and outgoing French President Sarkozy were said to have had an
awkward relationship, incoming President Hollande suggested cordial relations with the American
France Review 2016
France
president. He even went so far as to promise not to make things difficult for Obama, their possible
differences in policy notwithstanding.
Before the shift to the policy realm, though, there was time for celebration in France as the leftwing of that country welcomed its return to power. To that end, outside the Bastille in Paris -- a
symbolic venue for French leftists -- tens of thousands of Hollande's jubilant supporters gathered
to drink champagne and cheer the election result. Many chanted: "Sarko, it's over!" Upon winning
the presidency, Hollande expressed his pride at becoming the new French head of state. In a
victory speech delivered from his stronghold in Tulle in the center of the country, Hollande said
that he was "proud to have been capable of giving people hope again." He also reiterated his
promise to refocus the country's fiscal efforts from austerity to growth, saying: "Europe is watching
us, austerity can no longer be the only option." He then departed Tulle for Paris where was
expected to give his official victory speech to supporters at Place de la Bastille. There, Hollande
declared: "I am the president of the youth of France. You are a movement that is rising up
throughout Europe."
For his part, Sarkozy conceded defeat, took responsibility for the outcome of the election, and
wished Hollande good luck. During his concession speech, Sarkozy told supporters: "Francois
Hollande is the president of France and he must be respected." He also intimated a different role
on the French scene, saying, "My place will no longer be the same. My involvement in the life of
my country will now be different."
Hollande was inaugurated as the new president of the French republic later on May 15, 2012, at
the Elysee Palace. He was then charged with selecting a prime minister to form a new government
as well as with tackling the debt crisis ongoing across Europe. To that end, the first order of
business for incoming President Hollande would be a meeting with German Chancellor Angela
Merkel who conspicuously backed defeated Sarkozy in the French presidential race. Nevertheless,
the massive challenges of the euro zone would no doubt diminish the importance of the political
alliances prior to election day. Of key concern would be Hollande's differences with Merkel on
austerity as the mechanism to address the euro bloc's woes.
On the domestic front, President Hollande tapped fellow Socialist and close ally, Jean-Marc
Ayrault, to be the new prime minister, replacing outgoing Francois Fillion. Jean-Marc Ayrault
served as the mayor of Nantes and had extensive credentials at the legislative level. As a German
speaker, the new prime minister was expected to play a key role in discussions between Paris and
Berlin over the European treaty and the future of the euro zone.
Before taking on that role, Prime Minister Ayrault would have the task of forming a new French
government. To that end, he took the unprecedented path of selecting three black politicians –two of them women and all from France’s Overseas Departments in the Caribbean -– for
participation in the cabinet. These selections may have been a way of giving the proverbial nod to
certain overseas departments in the Caribbean, such as Guadeloupe, for giving Hollande his
France Review 2016
France
biggest margins of victory. Meanwhile, President Hollande's campaign promise to institute a
government of gender parity was met since 17 of the 24 cabinet ministers were women. With the
cabinet in place, President Hollande's administration then moved to issue a "good faith" move at a
time of economic strife by reducing the salaries of the president and cabinet ministers by 30
percent.
It should be noted that a parliamentary election was set to follow in France in June 2012.
Primer on 2012 Parliamentary Elections in France
First round -- June 10, 2012; second round -- June 17, 2012 -Summary
Parliamentary elections were scheduled to take place in France in 2012. A first round was
scheduled for June 10, 2012, and a second round was scheduled for June 17, 2012. Newlyelected French President Francois Hollande's policy agenda could be helped by victory for leftist
parties -- including his own Socialist Party -- in this parliamentary vote.
In Detail
Parliamentary elections were scheduled to take place in France in 2012. A first round was
scheduled for June 10, 2012, and a second round was scheduled for June 17, 2012. In France, the
legislative branch of government is composed of a bicameral "Parlement" (Parliament), which
consists of the "Sénat" (Senate) and the "Assemblée Nationale" (National Assembly). In these
elections, the 577 seats of the "Assemblée Nationale" (National Assembly) would be at stake.
There are 555 seats for metropolitan France, 15 seats for overseas departments, seven seats for
dependencies. Members are elected by popular vote under a single-member majority system to
serve five-year terms.
The center-right Union for a Popular Movement of former President Nicolas Sarkozy was
defending its absolute majority in the outgoing National Assembly. It was yet to be seen if it could
hold onto power in the lower house. With such a goal in mind, the Union for a Popular Movement
entered into an electoral agreement with the centrist Radical Party and New Center.
Still, the main fight in these parliamentary elections was expected to be between the far right and
the left-wing of the French political spectrum. The far right National Front, led by Marine Pen,
was hoping to mirror its strong performance in the presidential election months earlier. At that
time, Le Pen, as the standard bearer for the National Front, registered a third place finish, and was
now looking for her party to pull off representation in the National Assembly. Le Pen, who
eschewed a tactical alliance with former President Nicolas Sarkozy and his center-right Union for
France Review 2016
France
a Popular Movement, has long said that her party constituted "the only opposition" to the left.
Meanwhile, newly-elected French President Francois Hollande's Socialist Party was seeking to
augment its own strong performance in the presidential race with victory at the parliamentary
level. The left-wing would also be represented at the polls by the Communists, Left Front, and the
Greens. A key battlefront constituency was expected to be the northern industrial town of Henin
Beaumont where Le Pen would face off against far left leader, Jean Luc Melenchon.
During his own presidential campaign, Hollande embraced the left wing in a fulsome manner by
suggesting that he was open to an alliance with the Communist-backed Left Front in the
parliamentary elections against the right wing. President Hollande was also on the record expressing
confidence about the prospects of victory for the political left as he confidently declared in a May
2012 interview with France 2 Television, "All the conditions are there for a win... The momentum
is with us." Only days before the first round of the parliamentary vote, President Hollande rallied
supporters by calling on them to show up at the polls and give his party another victory. He said:
"I call on the French to vote. I call on them to give a large majority, a solid and coherent one."
It should be noted that the political left-wing in France already had control over the Senate
following the elections to the upper house. To that end, the 2011 Senate elections resulted in the
Socialist Party, along with its Communist and Green allies, securing a total of 177 seats, and
control over the in the upper chamber of parliament for the first time since the birth of the Fifth
Republic in 1958. Now in 2012, the left-wing was looking for similar results in the upper house.
Newly-elected French President Francois Hollande's policy agenda could be helped by victory for
leftist parties -- including his own Socialist Party -- in this parliamentary vote. Indeed, the future
composition of the parliament would likely influence the extent and pace of economic reforms in
France, which was now under the executive leadership of President Hollande. Of particular
significance was the revised budget plan that was expected to be presented by the Hollande-led
government in mid-2012.
Should President Hollande's Socialist Party and its allies win a majority in the lower house or
National Assembly, he would have a clear mandate to advance tax and spend policies. Those
policies were expected to be a sharp departure from Europe's recent penchant for economic
austerity in the euro zone, which has been championed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and
supported by outgoing French President Sarkozy. Indeed, for the Hollande-led government, the
policy focus would move towards not only cutting spending but also growing the French economy
and dealing with unemployment.
Should the left wing fail to achieve a parliamentary majority, then France would be subject to a
governing context known as "cohabitation" whereby the executive branch of government and the
lower house of the legislative branch would be controlled by rival parties. This dynamic is not new
to France, which saw its longest phase of cohabitation began in 1997 when the Socialists won the
National Assembly elections while Jacques Chirac of the center-right Union for a Popular
France Review 2016
France
Movement held the presidency. That parliamentary victory of 1997 heralded the longest lasting in
the history of the Fifth Republic. The two previous periods of cohabitation took place during
President Mitterrand's tenure, first from 1986 until 1988 with Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, and
then from 1993 until 1995 with Prime Minister Edouard Balladur. The French tradition during
periods of cohabitation has been for the president to exercise the primary role in foreign and
security policy, with the dominant role in domestic policy falling to the prime minister and his
government. In 2012, the main focus would be on the difficult domestic economic agenda, and
could thus present a contentious scenario for the French political scene.
On June 10, 2012, French voters went to the polls to cast their ballots in the first round of the
parliamentary elections. Turnout was said to be moderately low. Results after the first round
showed that President Hollande's Socialists and their Green allies were positioned for a majority
with around 46 percent of the vote share. French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault -- an ally of
the president -- was re-elected in the city of Nantes in the first round. Several other cabinet
ministers were re-elected in the first round with the rest expected to win election in the second
round.
The center-right Union for a Popular Movement and its electoral partners secured about 34
percent. Le Pen's far right National Front garnered almost 14 percent of votes -- well exceeding
the four percent won in the 2007 elections. Le Pen beat Melanchon in the first round of the fight
for the aforementioned Henin Beaumont constituency by securing a place in the ballot for the
second round, while Melanchon placed third and was out of the running. Still, Melanchon's
Communist-backed Left Front saw a respectable overall result having won close to seven percent
of the vote share.
Of course, given France's "first past the post" electoral structure, how those margins would
translate into actual seats was yet to be seen. While 46 percent by the Socialists and Greens was
just short of a majority, it was possible that with the support of the Left Front, the left wing parties
could have control over parliament. Indeed, the various left wing parties, led by the Socialists,
appeared to have done an effective job of placing pressure on their supporters to cast their ballots
en masse for the left in the parliamentary elections, in much the same way as they stood unified in
the presidential race.
The final tally would be seen after the second round vote on June 17, 2012, but political experts in
France expressed the view that President Hollande should be able to ultimately secure the 289
seats needed for an outright parliamentary majority following that forthcoming runoff vote. For
their part, the Socialists were cautiously optimistic about the political landscape as it stood a day
after the first round. As cited by the Associated Press, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said: "It's a
good result tonight... but we have to remain mobilized for the second round."
Ahead of that second round, the campaign for the second round of French parliamentary elections
turned violent. According to media reports, a supporter of the far-right National Front attacked
France Review 2016
France
Eline Enrique-Bouzanquet, a candidate of the center-right Union for a Popular Movement, in the
Var region in southern France. The act recalled a recent incident in Greece, which was also going
to the polls on June 17, 2012, when a neo-Nazi politician assaulted two left-wing female politicians
during televised programming.
On June 17, 2012, French voters returned to the polls to cast their ballots in the second round of
the parliamentary elections. With the votes counted, as expected, the Socialist Party of France and
its allies won enough parliamentary seats to form an absolute majority. A preliminary vote count
showed that the Socialists had won between 296 and 320 seats -- more than the 289 needed to
claim a majority in the 577-seat National Assembly; the center-right Union for a Popular
Movement garnered between 221 and 231 seats; the Socialist-allied Greens had won 20 seats; the
communist-allied Left Front had 10 seats; and the far-right National Front took between one and
four seats. National Front leader, Le Pen, would not be among those taking a seat in the new
parliament since she lost her election bid to her Socialist rival, Philipe Kemel.
This result meant that the Socialists could command control over the parliament without having to
rely on support from either the Greens or the far-left. With the Senate already in the Socialist
column, this result also ensured that President Hollande would have the parliamentary support
needed to advance his economic growth agenda, which has included increased taxation for the
country's richest citizens and increased public spending. Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault hailed
the Socialists' victory as well as the future for France saying, "Our parliamentary democracy will
be restored." Meanwhile, Jean-Francois Cope, the new leader of the Union for a Popular
Movement, noted that his party would be a "responsible but vigilant opposition" in the National
Assembly.
It should be noted that the news of election night was not so sanguine for one Socialist. Segolene
Royal -- the former Socialist presidential contender and former partner of current President
Hollande -- lost her election for the La Rochelle constituency to a dissident Socialist candidate,
Olivier Falorni. Royal conceded defeat but criticized the result a "political betrayal." The race for
this seat was imbued with controversy when Valerie Trierweiler, the current partner of President
Hollande, expressed support for Falorni, even as the new president sided with the mother of his
children, Royal. The incident was regarded as something of a political side-show amidst the high
stakes election contest.
Update:
On Nov. 20, 2012, Jean-Francois Cope, an ally of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy,
claimed victory over former Prime Minister Francois Fillon in the contest to lead France's
opposition party, Union for a Popular Movement (UMP). Cope won the center-right party's
leadership role by only a slim lead amidst a acrimonious battle, as supporters of the two factions
France Review 2016
France
respectively claimed to have won the leadership race and accused one another of irregularities. The
internal electoral body finally announced that Cope had garnered 0.06 percent more in the final
vote share, settling the matter.
With an eye on re-establishing party unity a day after the vote result was announced, Cope said:
"There is in my mind and in my heart neither bitterness nor rancor. What unites us is infinitely
greater than what divides us. Our opponents are in the left." Cope also promised to work with
Fillon to present a strong opposition to President Francois Hollande's Socialists. But the Fillon
camp was in no mood for the discourse of unity. Instead, they pointed to the fact that overseas
ballots were not yet counted, leaving the final count yet undetermined in their view. A mediation
effort was undertaken with an eye on resolution and by the close of the year a deal was reached to
accommodate supporters of both men in the party leadership.
Special Note on International Intervention in Mali
In early 2013, with the advance of the Islamists deeper and further south into Mali territory and
even taking control of the strategic town of Konna, the government of Mali appealed to France for
assistance in securing the country and the wider region. France heeded the call from its former
colony and French jets were soon bombing targets in Mali, with an eye on repelling the Islamic
extremist militants. In addition to the aerial bombardment by French forces, French ground troops
were also operating in Mali with the objective of rooting out the extremist threat by groups allied
with terror enclaves, such as al-Qaida.
According to French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, Rafale fighter jets from France had
destroyed rebel training camps and organizational depots in Mali, which were being used as bases
for terrorist groups. A statement from the French Defense Ministry read as follows: "France's goal
is to lead a relentless struggle against terrorist groups, preventing any new offensive of these groups
to the south of Mali." French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said that the French intervention had
helped halt the recent gains made by Ansar Dine and another entity called "Movement for Oneness
and Jihad in West Africa." He said that the French intervention had prevented these Islamic
extremist militant entities from getting to the capital of Bamako, which he warned would have had
"appalling consequences." In an interview with the media, Fabius said: "Stopping the terrorists,
that's done."
As France was carrying out its battle against extremist Islamists in Mali, other countries were also
considering whether or not to become involved in some manner in the effort to curb the terrorist
Jihadist and protect global security. Notably, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron
foreclosed the notion of British troops operating on the ground in Mali; however, he acknowledged
that his country would offer offering logistical support to France and share intelligence in the effort
to repel Mali's Islamist movement. The British prime minister said, "What is being done in Mali is
France Review 2016
France
in our interests and we should support France's actions." He continued, "There is a very dangerous
Islamist regime allied to al-Qaida in control of the north of that country. It was threatening the
south of that country and we should support the action that the French have taken." A report by
the Wall Street Journal indicated that the Obama administration in the United States was looking
towards some sort of limited assistance to the French effort, perhaps in the realm of providing
reconnaissance drones and air-intelligence equipment. Of course, the limited and cautious overtures
by the United Kingdom and the United States provided a contrast to France's rapid response to its
former colony's call for assistance.
A meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the situation in Mali was scheduled to
be held on January 14, 2013. The emergency meeting was convened at the request of vetowielding member, France. On that day, following the emergency meeting, the United Nations
Security Council issued its unanimous support for France's military intervention in Mali to fight
Islamist extremists. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued his personal sanction
for the actions of France saying that he hoped the intervention would assist in the restoration of
"Mali's constitutional order and territorial integrity." Indeed, the rapid French intervention was
being viewed as a necessary emergency step when the Islamists began advancing southward,
amidst fears they would take a foothold in the capital city of Bamako.
It should be noted that African troops, which were originally considered as the likely source of
international military support for Mali, have not been sidelined in the process. Thousands of
African troops were set to join the Malian military and French forces in the effort to repel the
Islamists extremists. It seemed that France was anxious for the intervention to be as multilateral as
possible with France's United Nations ambassador, Gerard Araud, saying that although his country
enjoyed the "understanding and support" of the other Security Council members, France wanted
the participation of West African troops to occur "as quickly as possible." The multilateral
intervention force would be deployed officially under the aegis of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 2085, which was passed in December 2012 and gave sanction for a United Nationsauthorized mission to intervene in Mali if there was no negotiated resolution. African troops were
expected to be provided by Nigeria, Niger, Burkina Faso, Togo, Benin, and Senegal.
Note: France's intervention into Mali was being lauded by the government of that country, led by
interim Malian President Dioncounda Traore. Indeed, French President Francois Hollande arrived
in the historic city of Timbuktu on Feb. 2, 2013, to a hero's welcome. As Hollande toured
Timbuktu, people chanted "Vive la France."
2013 Update :
In late March 2013, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was placed under formal
investigation over allegations that his 2007 election campaign received illegal contributions from
France Review 2016
France
L'Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt. Prosecutors said Sarkozy was being subject to formal
investigation "for taking advantage of a vulnerable person during 2007 to the detriment of Liliane
Bettencourt." For his part, Sarkozy has claimed that he only met Bettancourt occasionally -indeed, only once in the year 2007, the timeline pivotal to the case. But Bettencourt's butler,
Pascal Bonnefoy, offered a very different picture of the situation to Magistrate Jean-Michel Gentil,
who was leading the the inquiry. According to Agence France Presse, Sarkozy has denied the
charges and his lawyer has said an appeal would be filed against the "incoherent and unfair
decision."
By the start of April 2013, French President Francois Hollande's Socialist Party was itself dealing
with a scandal when it was revealed that his former Socialist Party treasurer invested in two
Cayman Islands offshore companies. In an interview with Le Monde, Jean-Jacques Augier, who
managed Hollande's campaign funds, dismissed the controversy, asserting that there was "nothing
illegal" in his investments in a known tax haven. But the Socialist Party's problems did not end
there as the former budget minister, Jerome Cahuzac, was facing fraud charges. At issue was
the admission by Cahuzac that he had about 600,000 euros (approximately $770,000) in a Swiss
bank account. Cahuzac apparently lied to the president, the parliament, and the public about his
holdings in such accounts. For his part, President Hollande was trying to assuage the public
outcry by promising in a nationalized address that all cabinet ministers and members of parliament
would, in the future, have to disclose their personal finances. Despite calls by the opposition for a
cabinet shuffle, President Hollande said that no such move was in the offing. He noted that the
Cahuzac scandal was a matter of individual wrongdoing and should not taint the entire government.
On April 23, 2013, a car bomb exploded close to the compound of the French embassy in the
Libyan capital city of Tripoli. The explosion occurred in the morning and damaged the embassy,
as well as several buildings in the area including two villas and several shopping establishments.
Because the embassy compound was empty at the time of the apparent terrorist attack, there were
no deaths and limited casualties - two security guards and a young girl were injured in the blast.
The French government condemned the attack with the French foreign ministry issuing the
following statement: "In conjunction with the Libyan authorities, our government departments will
make every effort to ensure that all light be shed on the circumstances of this heinous act and its
perpetrators quickly identified." But France also hard a sharp demand for the Libyan government
to assist in determining who was responsible for the attack and ensuring accountability. To that
end, French President Francois Hollande issued his own statement, as follows: "France expects the
Libyan authorities to ensure that all possible light is shed on this unacceptable act so that the
perpetrators are identified and brought to justice."
The attack on the French embassy in Tripoli came less than a year after militants stormed the
American consulate in Benghazi, resulting in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens. Both
incidences cast a harsh light on the reality that even in the aftermath of the Qadhafi era, Libya was
France Review 2016
France
beset by instability, and foreign interests posed a particularly attractive target for extremists
militants of the type believed to be responsible for both attacks on diplomatic entities.
On May 5, 2013, tens of thousands of French leftists took to the streets of the French capital of
Paris to register their discontent over the leadership of President Francois Hollande. Almost one
year after he was elected to power, President Hollande found himself suffering dismal approval
ratings -- around 25 percent -- an apparent reflection of the French citizenry's outrage over the
slumping economy and high unemployment rate. But among leftists -- a natural political base for a
Socialist president -- there was a special level of outrage reserved for Hollande as they railed
against his perceived abandonment of socialism and his penchant for entertaining austerity
measures.
Jean-Luc Melanchon, the leader of the Communist-backed Left Front, organized the rally to
protest against Hollande and accuse him of betraying his supporters. To that end, Melanchon had
endorsed Hollande in the second round of the 2012 presidential elections, passionately arguing at
the time that Hollande was a better alternative to then-President Nicolas Sarkozy and the centerright. A year later at this mass demonstration, Melanchon said: "We don't want the financial world
taking the power, we don't accept austerity measures which doom our people, like all people in
Europe, to never-ending pain." But Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault responded to this assertion
by claiming that reforms would eventually yield positive results, and suggesting that the notion of
austerity measures was fictitious. He said: "There is no austerity, that's a propaganda invention."
It should be noted that President Hollande also was dealing with a series of scandals within his own
party -- the revelation that his former Socialist Party treasurer invested in two Cayman Islands
offshore companies, the discovery that his former budget minister, Jerome Cahuzac, was facing
fraud charges over his holdings in Swiss bank accounts.
2014 Update:
By the start of 2014, President Hollande himself was the subject of rumor, speculation, and
scandal when reports emerged about him having a personal affair with an actress. The president -already suffering from poor approval ratings -- demanded that his privacy be respected.
Ultimately, a split between the president and his partner, Valerie Trierweiler, was announced.
In mid-March 2014, an Islamist Jihadist extremist network, al-Minbar Jihandi Media, called on
aspiring Jihadist militants to attack France. The al-Minbar Jihadi Media Network published six
posters as part of its campaign titled, "We will not be silent, O France." The campaign and these
posters were intended to incite terror attacks against France. A publishing house for al-Qaida
affiliates, al-Minbar Jihadi Media was clearly moving into the arena of pro-terrorism propaganda.
France Review 2016
France
At issue for al-Minbar Jihadi Media was France's military involvement in Mali and the Central
African Republic where Muslim extremists have been active. The network objected to France's
engagement in fighting extremist militant entities, such as Ansar al-Dine, and Tuareg rebels in Mali,
as well as France's activity in the Central African Republic where Muslim "Seleka" rebels seized
power and were gradually being repelled by a Christian militia.
In its clarion call for a Jihadist terror campaign targeting France, the network issued the following
dictate in one of its posters: "To our lone-wolves in France, assassinate the president of disbelief
and criminality, terrify his cursed government, and bomb them and scare them as a support to the
vulnerable in the Central African Republic."
The office of French President Francois Hollande responded to the explicit call for assassination by
stating that the government was alert. That being said, a spokesperson added, "This is not the first
time there have been threats. There were others during the Mali intervention and even before, so
we took precautionary measures." The spokesperson continued, "Just because they (threats) are
being publicized does not mean that they are new... Sometimes they are more dangerous when
they are not publicized."
At the start of April 2014, following a poor performance by his Socialist Party in local elections,
French President Francois Hollande appointed a new prime minister to set the country on the path
of financial management. President Hollande selected centrist Manuel Valls to replace outgoing
Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, who resigned after the Socialists' disappointing defeat at the
local level.
For his part, incoming Prime Minister Valls heralded his new post saying, "This is a difficult but
inspiring task." He continued, "I will continue the work you have done to put right our country,
economy, industry and public finances."
While Valls was a popular figure at the national level, his centrist credentials made him a lightning
rod of sorts for the leftist base of the president's Socialist Party. As well, his presence spurred
Hollande's Greens coalition partners to warn that they would not be able to work with Valls.
There were hopes that the inclusion of President Hollande's former partner, Segolene Royal, in the
cabinet as environment minister, might assuage the base of the Socialist Party. Other inclusions in
the new government would be Michel Sapin -- a stalwart of Hollande -- at the Ministry of
Finance, while Arnaud Montebourg -- a clear leftist -- would hold the ministerial portfolio for
industry and economy. Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius was re-confirmed in his post
with his duties expanded into the realm of international development.
The May 2014 elections to the European Union parliament resulted with a shockingly strong
performance for right-wing parties, and particularly so for France's far-right National Front. The
repercussions of this result would likely reverberate on the domestic landscape in France with
France Review 2016
France
questions arising about whether the xenophobic, Euro-skeptic, and anti-immigrant National Front
leader, Marine Le Pen, could be France's next president.
What with the Socialist President Francois Hollande suffering from dismal popularity ratings, and
with the conservative opposition dealing with a corruption scandal over the funding of former
President Nicolas Sarkozy's failed 2012 election bid, the political landscape in France was ripe for
a third option. Of course, it was to be seen if the far-right National Front could provide that
alternative pathway.
This conundrum was not a new one for France. In 2002, a similarly discontent and disillusioned
French electorate gave way for the Socialist candidate's defeat in the first round of the presidential
election. The result was a run-off between conservative leader, Jacques Chirac, and the far-right
candidate, Jean Marie Le Pen -- the father of the current National Front leader. The 2002 runoff
contest would go down in French history as a momentous occasion when committed leftists were
forced to vote for a conservative -- Chirac -- to avoid seeing France ruled by a xenophobic zealot
in the form of Le Pen. The result was a coalition of voters from Socialists, to Greens, to Liberals,
and Conservatives casting their votes for Chirac to hold off a Le Pen presidency.
It was to be seen if Marine Le Pen would ultimately accomplish what her father failed to do by
becoming president. She would likely be helped by the fact that she managed to transform
perceptions of the National Front as merely racist to being more broadly resistant to unfettered
immigration and Euro-skeptic. This mode has tempered the party and thus made it more palatable
to some factions of the French public. However, before the next presidential contest in France,
both the Socialists and the conservatives would have time to repair their political injuries and
present themselves as viable options to a French electorate again disillusioned by the traditional
parties.
July 2014 saw former French President Nicolas Sarkozy being placed under investigation over
claims of influence peddling. At issue were allegations that Sarkozy promised Judge Gilbert
Azibert a prestigious position in Monaco in exchange for insider information on a campaign funding
probe. It should be noted that Sarkozy has been at the center of a number of claims involving
misuse of influence and campaign fund raising irregularities.
Sarkozy was being held at Nanterre -- close to Paris -- where he was being questioned about the
aforementioned allegations. Also under interrogation were Judge Azibert, Judge Patrick Sassoust,
and Sarkozy's lawyer, Thierry Herzog. Sarkozy and his supporters have accused investigators of
carrying out a politically-influenced witch hunt against him, noting that every time the former
president moves to re-enter the public purview, new (and poisonous) allegations emerge. For its
part, the left-wing government has denied that it was involved in the judicial system's push to
prosecute Sarkozy.
France Review 2016
France
There were some suggestions that these particular allegations against Sarkozy -- whether they held
merit or not -- could negatively impact his ambitions to contest the presidency in 2017. However,
according to polling data by Ifop published by Atlantico, Sarkozy remained the top choice of
center-right French voters to be their candidate for the presidency. In fact, 60 percent of supporters
of the center-right Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) said they supported Sarkozy for the
presidency. Of note was the fact that Sarkozy's popularity actually increased once he was placed
under formal investigation. Presumably, supporters of the UMP agreed with Sarkozy who has said
cast the probe as a politically-motivated witch hunt by the left against him.
Internal fighting within the leftist ranks of the French political establishment over the future
economic policy led to France's President Francois Hollande on Aug. 25, 2014, to call for a cabinet
shuffle. At issue was an emerging conflict was over the economic austerity policies driven by
Germany but affecting all euro bloc countries including France.
Specifically, French Economy Minister Arnaud Montebourg railed against the austerity agenda, and
criticized Germany for damaging regional economies with its "obsession" with the policies of
economic austerity. At a news conference at France's Ministry of Finance, he said, "The whole
world is begging us to put an end to these absurd austerity policies which are burying the euro zone
deeper and deeper in recession and which will soon end up with deflation." He continued, "We
must have the intellectual and political courage to acknowledge that austerity policies are making
deficits worse instead of narrowing them."
Montebourg stance was not a surprise since he has consistently insisted that cutting the deficit was
not the correct course for France, which was already hamstrung by stagnant growth and high
unemployment. Nevertheless, Montebourg's impassioned attack made it clear that he was not
interested in a role in a future cabinet, should the president seek to perpetuate its existing economic
reform agenda. Montebourg also indicated that other leftists in government, such as Education
Minister Benoit Hamon and Vulture Minister Aurelie Filipetti were also resigning from the cabinet.
Despite the resonance Montebourg's admonishments held with the leftist base of the French
electorate, and seemingly irrespective of the fact that he was sporting the worst approval ratings of
any French president in recent memory, President Hollande said he would ask Prime Minister
Manuel Valls to move forward with changes to the cabinet. That new cabinet, according to the
president, should adhere to his pro-business economic reform agenda. A statement by the office of
the prime minister read as follows: "The head of state asked Prime Minister Manuel Valls to form a
team that supports the objectives he has set out for the country."
By September 2014, President Hollande's new cabinet was being subject to scrunity from dissident
Socialists who said they might abstain from a forthcoming confidence vote. That vote, set for
Sept. 16, 2014, was intended to ratify the new government. However, the anti-austerity and rebel
wings of the party were thought to be the very faction that might cause the confidence vote to fail.
France Review 2016
France
Such an end would essentially force the dissolution of the parliament and set the path for snap
elections. Despite Hollande's unpopularity, the Socialist establishment was hoping there were
enough stalwarts available to pass the confidence vote and save Prime Minister Vall's government.
To that end, on Sept. 16, 2014, French Prime Minister Valls successfully quelled the backbencher
Socialist revolt against his government, by winning the confidence vote at stake. Prime Minister
Valls was able to secure support from the Socialist Party by committing to protect France's social
welfare state while simultaneously moving forward with business-friendly reforms, which were
intended to spur economic development. In a speech, Prime Minister Valls said, "Reform doesn't
mean destroying our social model... We must adapt and reinvent this model but it's not dead, it's
not outdated." It was a plan reminiscent of former Prime Minister Tony Blair's so-called "third
way" model in the United Kingdom.
Note: The vote result showed 269 members of parliament voting to back the government of Valls
and 244 voting against it. As many as 32 Socialists abstained from the vote in protest of proposed
measures to cut public spending.
Even as the internecine imbroglio was unfolding within the Socialist Party of France, the French
conservatives were looking to recapture the presidency in the 2017 elections. Despite the fact that
he was under investigation on corruption allegations, former President Nicolas Sarkozy indicated
that he was ready to re-enter the political fray and seek the leadership of the Union for a Popular
Movement or UMP. In late September 2014, Sarkozy conveyed his intention via Facebook,
writing: "I am a candidate for the presidency of my political family". He added: "I will propose
reforming it from top to bottom so as to create, within three months, the basis of a new and broad
movement that can speak to the French as a whole ... This broad movement will adopt a new
project."
The anti-immigrant National Front, which has increasingly become the third most powerful entity
on the French political landscape, responded to Sarkozy's news with an air of dismissiveness. The
deputy leader of the National Front, Florian Philippot, said of Sarkozy: "Most French see him as
yesterday's man. We need new faces and new ideas." That being said, the National Front
appeared to welcome the former prime minister's move, seeing it as a way to ensure that it was
the political beneficiary. Philippot said, "From our point of view, he's a great candidate." At issue
was the National Front's belief that with Sarkozy at the helm of the UMP, right-leaning voters
might flock to their door, thus propelling their leader, the xenophobic Marine Le Pen, to the
presidency.
Note on International Affairs:
See "Special Report" in the "Foreign Relations" section for information related to France's role in
France Review 2016
France
the Syrian crisis . Note that French troops were also embroiled in the fight against Islamist and
Tuareg extremists in Mali, as discussed in that section also, as well as a burgeoning sectarian crisis
in the Central African Republic as of the start of 2014.
Special Report on Terror Attack on Satirical Magazine in Paris
Jan. 7, 2015, was marked by an appalling assault on democratic freedom as Islamist extremists
carried out a terrorist attack on the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, in the French capital
city of Paris.
The Islamist terrorists were disguised in masks and clutching assault rifles (quite possibly
Kalashnikovs) as they invaded the offices of the Charlie Hebdo magazine in the heart of Paris.
The terrorists then proceeded to open fire on journalists during their daily editorial meeting,
ultimately killing 12 people and critically wounding four others before fleeing the scene of the
crime. Among the dead were some of the magazine's cartoonists, the editor, an economist and two
police officers - ironically one of whom was himself Muslim.
At first there were reports of two terrorists being responsible; however, French authorities later
indicated there might be three suspects at large. As noted above, the assailants escaped in a vehicle
following their killing spree. They subsequently abandoned that car at Rue de Meaux in northern
Paris where they hijacked a second car. A manhunt was underway in France to apprehend the
killers, whose murderous work was partially recorded by the cameras of witnesses in the area.
Because Charlie Hebdo was a satirical publication, using acerbic and mocking humor in its writings,
including challenges to all religions, the deduction was that the attack on its editorial staff was likely
due to socio-political grievances. The fact that the terrorist gunmen were heard shouting "We have
killed Charlie Hebdo! We have avenged the Prophet [Mohammed]!" only solidified that deduction.
This type of virulent reaction from Islamic extremists regarding satirical depictions of the Muslim
religion was reminiscent of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy in Denmark in
2005. At that time, the Danish newspaper published a series of editorial cartoons, most of which
depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, sometimes in an unflattering manner. This action
sparked protests across the world and threats to the safety of the editorial staff of the newspaper.
For its part, Jyllands-Posten in 2005, much like Charlie Hebdo in more recent years having been
firebombed in 2011, have argued that, as journalistic enterprises, they are exercising their
democratic freedom of expression, and contributing to the debate over extremist Islam and selfcensorship. Clearly, the terror attack in Paris ten years later on the journalistic staff at Charlie
Hebdo showed that Islamists were willing to use murderous means to silence those whose work is
deemed by extremist Muslims to be offensive.
France Review 2016
France
Of note was the fact that the attack on a satirical publication shocked not only France, but also the
civilized world, which embraces the notion of freedom of expression even when the subject matter
may be provocative, difficult, controversial, and offensive. In France, particularly, satire has been
a central element of social criticism and journalism for centuries. Indeed, Marie-Antoinette herself
was satirized in highly critical form in French scandal sheets in the period prior to the French
Revolution.
At home in France on Jan. 7, 2015, this event at the office of Charlie Hebdo in Paris was the first
major terrorist attack since the mid-1990s when the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
launched a series of attacks, the most well-known of which was the 1995 bombing of a commuter
train that left eight people dead and another and 150 injured. That being said, events at the close
of 2014 augured negative developments on the French national security scene to come.
In December 2014, France was plagued by a spate of attacks by Jihadist Islamist extremists. In
response, French authorities deployed its armed forces and increased police patrols to hotspot areas
across the country. The attacks in Dijon, Tours, and Nantes left at least one person clinically dead
and more than 20 others injured.
While these incidents were not coordinated, they were at least ideologically linked -- seemingly
inspired by the terror group, Islamic State, which has urged its Jihadist sympathizers to act as "lone
wolves" and attack Westerners. Rather than plan elaborate terror events, Islamic State called on
Muslims with allied views to use basic tools at their disposal to carry out low grade attacks. To this
end, one attack in Dijon simply involved a man driving his car into a group of pedestrians while
screaming "God is Great" in Arabic. More than a dozen people were injured in that case. Another
incident at a Christmas market in Nantes involved a man targeting a stall with his van; that attack
seriously wounded several people and tragically left one person clinically dead. A third incident
involved a stabbing attack on a group of police officers but ended with the death of the assailant. In
Cannes, a possible attack may have been averted when police apprehended a man armed with two
shotguns and a knife at a local market.
At the time, Prime Minister Manuel Valls acknowledged the "concerns" of the French citizenry as
he announced the intensified security measures, but urged people to carry on with their lives. He
said, "We do not minimize these acts. The best response is to continue to live peacefully with the
necessary vigilance of course." Meanwhile, President Francois Hollande convened an emergency
cabinet meeting.
Now, at the start of 2015, it was apparent that those attacks were only of a taste of the horror to
come. Moreover, whereas the incidents in 2014 appeared to be random attacks carried out by
"lone wolf" Muslim extremist actors sympathetic to Islamic Jihadist ideals, it was clear that the
terror attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine was a well-orchestrated and sophisticated operation
bearing the hallmarks of a more established terror network. Whether those indications turned out to
France Review 2016
France
be accurate was yet to be seen.
President Francois Hollande wasted little time in characterizing the violence in Paris not only as a
terrorist attack, but also one "of exceptional barbarity." He said, "An act of indescribable barbarity
has just been committed today in Paris. Measures have been taken to find those responsible, they
will be hunted for as long as it takes to catch them and bring them to justice." Meanwhile, French
Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said that Paris had been placed on the highest alert.
Global leaders entered the fray to express their vociferous responses to the terror attack in Paris.
United States President Barack Obama expressed his strenuous condemnation of the "horrific
shooting" and reviled the terrorists as being afraid of democratic freedom as he said: "The fact that
this was an attack on journalists, an attack on our free press, also underscores the degree to which
these terrorists fear freedom of speech and freedom of the press." The United States president also
promised to provide France with any assistance needed "to help bring these terrorists to justice."
United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron declared: "The murders in Paris are sickening.
We stand with the French people in the fight against terror and defending the freedom of the
press." German Chancellor Angela Merkel said: "This abominable act is not only an attack on the
lives of French citizens... It is also an attack on freedom of speech and the press, core elements of
our free democratic culture." United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said: "It was a
horrendous, unjustifiable and cold-blooded crime. It was also a direct assault on a cornerstone of
democracy, on the media and on freedom of expression."
For its part, despite losing some of its own journalists to this appalling act of terrorism, the Charlie
Hebdo publication resumed operations, with its website back online in the aftermath of the attack
and displaying the image of "Je suis Charlie" ("I am Charlie) on a black banner -- a statement
referencing a hashtag that is trending across the social media outlet, Twitter, in solidarity with the
victims of this attack on democratic freedom.
Meanwhile, the horror in Paris was inspiring at least one well-known celebrity writer to enter the
equation and express his thoughts on freedom of expression. The writer, Salman Rushdie, whose
1988 book "Satanic Verses" led to accusations by conservative Muslims of blasphemy and earned
him a fatwa on his life, had some experience with the matter. Rushdie issued a blistering
excoriation of extremist religious zealotry during an interview with the United Kingdom-based The
Guardian. Rushdie said: “I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire,
which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity." He
continued, "Religion, a medieval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry
becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation
in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today." He added, "Respect for
religion has become a code phrase meaning fear of religion... Religions, like all other ideas, deserve
criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.”
France Review 2016
France
French authorities were soon indicating that they had the names of the assailants. They were
identified as French nationals -- two brothers, Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi of Algerian
ancestry. It should be noted that a third suspect, Hamyd Mourad, was also identified. Mourad
quickly surrendered to French authorities once his name was made public. He was subsequently
released without charges.
Saïd Kouachi, reportedly spent several months at an al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula terrorist
training camp in Yemen. Of note was the fact that one of the Kouachi brothers had told witnesses
outside the Charlie Hebdo office prior to their get-away that they were doing the work of al-Qaida
in the Arabian Peninsula. His brother, Cherif Kouachi, was arrested in 2005 due to his criminal
associations with a terrorist enterprise, convicted and ultimately sentenced to prison for 18
months. He did not actually serve that sentence, being released instead due to the time he spent in
pre-trial detention.
These revelations indicated that the Kouachi brothers were actually on the radar of terrorism
watchers. Indeed, they had been placed on the United States' Terrorist Identities Datamart
Environment (TIDE) system —- a classified database of suspects with possible terror ties.
Moreover, they were deemed to be such a concern that they had been added to the even more
restrictive "no fly" list, banning them from boarding commercial aircraft into and out of the United
States. The fact that both Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi were identified as terror threats by
United States counter-terrorism authorities raised questions as to why the two brothers were free
and able to carry out an act of terrorism in France.
A manhunt was underway in the days following the attack at the office of Charlie Hebdo to find
the Kouachi brothers. Media reports indicated that the two men who had fled in a vehicle later
stole a car from a man while on the run, and robbed convenience stores during their attempt to
escape authorities in pursuit. The hunt for the Kouachi went on for two days. There were reports
of an individual in black garb shooting and killing a female police officer in this period. At the time,
it was not known if the Kouachi brothers were involved, or if there was another connection to the
Charlie Hebdo terror attack.
Chaos erupted once again on Jan. 9, 2015, when the brothers were located at a printing plant to the
north of Paris where they had taken a hostage. Simultaneous with this development was the news
that another assailant had taken shoppers at a Jewish kosher supermarket in eastern Paris hostage.
French police gathered at both scenes, which were respectively evolving into dangerous stand-offs.
The print shop scenario ended in what French authorities called a "satisfactory" manner with the
lone hostage being released and the Kouachi brothers being killed as they exited the print shop and
opened fire on police, injuring two, and ultimately were shot to death by police themselves.
According to French authorities, the Kouachi brothers told hostage negotiators that they intended
to “die as martyrs.”
France Review 2016
France
The kosher shop scenario ended with heartbreak as at least four shoppers were shot to death by
the assailant, who was later identified as Amedy Coulibaly -- as associate of the Kouachi brothers
who declared himself to be a follower of the notorious terror group, Islamic State. He was also
identified as the person responsible for the murder of the French police officer mentioned above,
and told hostage negotiators that his actions had been coordinated with the Kouachi brothers.
During surveillance on the kosher shop, police viewed Coulibaly praying and worried that he was
anticipating a dire fate for the hostages. As such, they made the difficult decision to storm the
shop. French police were able to kill the terrorist and fifteen hostages were released safely after
that operation.
The drama continued with the news that a fourth suspect -- Hayat Boumeddiene, the common law
wife of Coulibaly -- was at large. Boumeddiene was being described as Coulibaly's accomplice and
part of an activated terror cell; she was believed to have escaped to Syria. A world wide alert went
out for Boumeddiene, making her quite likely the most wanted woman in the world at the start of
2015. Turkey's foreign ministry soon announced that Boumedienne arrived in the Spanish capital
city of Madrid on Jan. 2, 2015, and entered Syria on Jan. 8, 2015, via Turkey.
For his part, French President Francois Hollande described the events that had rocked Paris at the
start of 2015 as "a tragedy for the nation.". He offered thanks to French security forces for their
"bravery" and "efficiency," but warned that the country faced the real threat of terrorism. He urged
people to be vigilant while closing ranks in national unity as he said, "We have to be vigilant. I also
ask you to be united -- it's our best weapon. We must be implacable towards racism," adding that
the kosher supermarket attack was an "appalling anti-Semitic act."
At the practical level, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls admitted that there had been a "clear
failing" of French intelligence services, saying, "If 17 people die, this means mistakes have been
made." He also announced that up to 10,000 security forces would be deployed to "sensitive"
locations across the country as a safety measure.
Paris on Jan. 11, 2015, was a venue of solidarity as world leaders joined the French leadership and
the French citizenry to participate in a mass rally of about 3.7 million people honoring the dead,
and celebrating Western values of democratic liberty and freedom. French President Francois
Hollande declared: "Paris is the capital of the world today." Conspicuously absent was a leading
official from the United States, although the ambassador to France was present at the march.
Days later, United States Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to France to lay wreaths to mark
the tragic deaths of victims at the two main Paris attack sites. He also went to the Elysee
presidential palace to offer personal condolences to President Francois Hollande and to offer a
fusome apology for the absence of a senior United States official at the unity and free speech rally
held in Paris and attended by other heads of state and leading officials from some 40 countries.
France Review 2016
France
Speaking in French, Secretary of State Kerry said, "Today, I wanted to be here, at home with you,
among you. I wanted to tell you personally of the horror and revulsion that all Americans felt at
these cowardly and despicable attacks against innocent victims and fundamental values."
At the national security level in France, police were rounding up and interrogating individuals
suspected of helping the Islamist terorists behind Charlie Hebdo and kosher shop attacks in Paris.
DNA on the car used by Coulibaly indicated the involvement of another suspect who was reported
to be in French custody on Jan. 19, 2015.
Days earlier, French authorities hinted that a series of measures would be implemented, including
the creation of "specific quarters" for jihadists in prisons and tighter online and social media
surveillance. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said of that the action was being taken in
response to the prevailing "terrorist offensive." He added, "We must respond to this exceptional
situation with exceptional measures." The French prime minister was also forthright in noting that
his country was at war with extremism and terrorism, but made it clear that such a war did not
extend to individual Muslims. He said, "We are at war against jihadism and terrorism... but France
is not at war against Islam and Muslims."
Meanwhile, President Hollande -- suffering for some time from abysmal approval ratings -- saw his
poll rating skyrocket more than 20 points in the aftermath of the Paris attacks and the burgeoning
threat of Jihadist Islamist terrrorism. An Ifop telephone survey for Paris Match and Sud Radio
showed Hollande sporting a 50 percent approval rating -- the highest level in two years. Ifop's
research team concluded that French citizens saw Hollande responding appropriately to the terror
threat to the French homeland and were duly rewarding him. A similar rise in the president's
Socialist Party was also being registered. Polling data by BVA showed that Hollande's Socialist
Party gained four points to 30 percent -- ahead of Marine Le Pen's ultra-right National Front,
which most analysts believed would actually benefit from the threat to the French homeland.
Instead, Hollande and the Socialists were being regarded -- at least for the moment -- as being up
to the task of leadership.
Around the same time in mid-January 2015, Belgian authorities carried out a series of counterterrorism raids across that country. One particularly dramatic counter-terrorism raid was reported
to have taken place in the eastern city of Verviers. A handful of terror suspects opened fire using
military-style weaponry and handguns on police, who responded by returning fire and killing them.
Several arrests were made and Belgian authorities announced that they had managed to foil a
massive terror plot, reminiscent of what had taken place in Paris.
Belgian authorities did not immediately relay details of this plot to the public. Nevertheless, they
made it clear that the suspects were at the point of launching "terrorist attacks on a grand scale."
In the days that followed the counter-terrorism operation, some disturbing information began to
make it through to the public sphere. Of note was the fact that police uniforms, explosives,
France Review 2016
France
weaponry including AK-47 assault rifles, were discovered at the home of two of the suspects killed
during the aforementioned raids. Eric Van Der Sypt, a spokesperson for the Belgian prosecutors'
office, said, "This group was on the point of carrying out terrorist attacks aiming to kill police
officers in the streets and in police stations." He stopped short of confirming alarming media
reports that the terror plotters intended to abduct a police chief and behead him.
It should be noted that Belgium was home to a significant Muslim population, with a
disproportionate number of Muslim youth becoming radicalized and quite possibly posing a Jihadist
threat to national security. In fact, on a proportional basis, Belgium had the dubious distinction of
being the European country from where the highest number of citizens have gone to fight with
Islamic State terrorists in Syria. Given the threat to national security posed by this reality, Belgian
Prime Minister Charles Michel raised the national threat alert level, saying, "In the situation we can
consider it is useful to raise the level of prudence and vigilance."
Belgian security forces were reported to be present and on patrol at public buildings, police
stations and Jewish institutions. Similar precautions were being taken in France.
While the Paris attacks may have acted as a catalyst for the raids in Belgium, there was no direct
link between the Belgian counter-terrorism operation, or the foiled plot to take place on Belgian
soil, with the terror attacks that took place 10 days prior in France. However, there was an
indirect connnection as it was soon announced that the weapons procured by the Paris kosher shop
terrorist, Amedy Coulibaly, came from a Belgian arms dealer.
With the global threat of terrorism looming, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron
joined his American counterpart, President Barack Obama, in announcing a plan for counterterrorism cooperation. Among the measures to be implemented were the establishment of a
counter-terrorism task force and the deployment of more drones aimed at targeting the terror
group, Islamic State. In the effort to track terrorists, the two leaders were advocating greater
cooperation with technology companies, with an eye on accessing encrypted communications that
terrorists may use to plot attacks.
The leaders of the two countries emphasized the closeness of the trans-Atlantic partnership, with
both men offering fulsome assurances of their personal friendship as well as the strength and depth
of the United Kingdom-United States alliance. Prime Minister Cameron and President Obama
made it clear that their two countries were committed to sharing information, intelligence, and
expertise in the effort to prevent Islamist radicalism and to address "violent extremism" in their
respective countries.
Speaking of the threat posed by Islamist terrorists in the wake of the Paris attacks, Prime Minister
Cameron noted that his country, along with the United States, faced a "poisonous and fanatical
ideology." He said: "We face a poisonous and fanatical ideology that wants to pervert one of the
France Review 2016
France
world's major religions, Islam, and create conflict, terror and death. With our allies we will confront
it wherever it appears." President Obama struck a similar tone, saying that his country would work
with the United Kingdom and other allies "seamlessly to prevent attacks and defeat these terrorist
networks." Explaining the challenge posed by radicalized extremists who carry out acts of terror,
he said "This is a problem that causes great heartache and tragedy and destruction. But it is one
that ultimately we are going to defeat."
Editor's Note:
The Editorial Department of CountryWatch stands in solidarity with the people of France. The
Editorial Department of CountryWatch respects and embraces the democratic exercise of freedom
of expression.
Political Climate in 2015
In February 2015, a victory for the French Socialists over the far-right National Front stood as a
political victory for French President Francois Hollande in the aftermath of the horrific terror
attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and a Jewish kosher supermarket in Paris. The election in
the eastern Doubs region gave victory to the Socialists' candidate, Frederick Barbier, with 52
percent of the vote share, over the National Front's Sophie Montel with 48 percent.
Some political analysts have surmised that the threat of Jihadist Islamists terrorists in France -where a significant portion of France's Muslim population has sympathies with the terror group,
Islamic State -- would benefit the far-right National Front at the polls, given that party's xenophobic
and nationalist views. The theory was that the threat of Islamist terrorism would benefit the farright National Front, given its anti-immigration and ultra-nationalist views. However, it seems that
the French citizenry was proving itself to be far more sophisticated than to react to the terror threat
by reflexively turning inward.
Of note was the fact that President Hollande -- suffering for some time from abysmal approval
ratings -- saw his poll rating skyrocket more than 20 points in the aftermath of the Paris attacks
and the burgeoning threat of Jihadist Islamist terrrorism. An Ifop telephone survey for Paris
Match and Sud Radio showed Hollande sporting a 50 percent approval rating -- the highest level in
two years. Ifop's research team concluded that French citizens saw Hollande responding
appropriately to the terror threat to the French homeland and were duly rewarding him. A similar
rise in the president's Socialist Party was also being registered. Polling data by BVA showed that
Hollande's Socialist Party gained four points to 30 percent -- ahead of Marine Le Pen's ultra-right
National Front, which most analysts believed would actually benefit from the threat to the French
homeland. Instead, Hollande and the Socialists were being regarded -- at least for the moment -- as
being up to the task of leadership.
France Review 2016
France
That view was translating into actual voting habits with voters opting for the French Socialists over
the National Front in the by-election in eastern Doubs. While the election result gave the Socialists
only a narrow victory, the fact of the matter was that former conservative President Nicolas
Sarkozy had done the Socialists no favors. Rather than bowing to pressure, Sarkozy refuse to
advise tha party faithful of the Union for a Popular Movement or UMP to favor the Socialists with
their votes over the National Front. Instead, Sarkozy told his UMP supporters to vote their own
choice. The fact that conservative-leaning voters opted to support the Socialists in enough
numbers to tip the balance in their favor -- rather than that of the National Front -- illustrated the
mood of the French electorate. It was to be seen if that mood was temporary or sustainable.
The French Socialists won another political victory in the third week of February 2015 when the
government of Prime Minister Manuel Valls won a confidence vote brought forward by the
opposition conservatives. At issue was a parliamentary measure employed by Prime Minister
Valls to push through a package of economic reforms. In fact, the reforms were opposed by the
left-wing; however, the conservatives were using the opportunity to capitalize on the disunity
within the left-wing and thus deemed the move by Valls as undemocratic, and then introduced a
no confidence measure against the government. However, the vote did not go the way of the
conservatives. with Socialists closing ranks despite the objections of some backbenchers to the
economic reform package. It should be noted that the economic reforms included measures to
expand trading hours and deregulate certain economic sectors.
In the spring of 2015, an internal fracas was brewing within France far-right National Front party
as its founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, found himself on a political collision course with his daughter,
Marine Le Pen, the party's current leader.
At issue was a campaign by Marine Le Pen to shift the perception of the party as a xenophobic
entity trafficking in bigotry to more of a more acceptable hard-right party. To this end, Marine Le
Pen urged her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, to cease reminding the public of his extreme views and
withdraw from politics entirely.
Of note was Jean-Marie Le Pen's controversial statements in April 2015, declaring that Nazi gas
chambers were simply a "detail" of history, as well as his defense of Philippe Petain, the leader of
the government at the time, which cooperated and collaborated with Nazi Germany.
These stances by the older Le Pen could hardly be regarded as "news." Indeed, they were wellknown positions by the older Le Pen, which contributed to the view of the National Front as a
xenophobic and racist party with disturbing pro-Nazi sympathies. But in recent years, the younger
Le Pen has sought to blunt these sharp edges, taking the party into the mainstream, and
concentrating more on policy than ideology. It was an agenda that has been periodically hurt by
controversial statements by Jean-Marie Le Pen, as he reminds French citizens of the disturbing
France Review 2016
France
legacy of the National Front.
As the power struggle between the two Le Pens increased in the spring of 2015, Jean-Marie Le
Pen, announced that he would not contest the regional elections, suggesting that his granddaughter
Marion Marechal Le Pen instead contest the election. The decision was expected to bring some
political relief to Marine Le Pen; however, Jean-Marie Le Pen's later insistence that he would
remain in politics for the duration of his life was not expected to be welcomed by his daughter. For
his part, Jean-Marie Le Pen said, "I'll be a member of the European Parliament for four more
years so I am not retiring at all. I'll go till the end or as long as the 'Boss' doesn't call me back."
It was unlikely that Marine Le Pen would welcome either that vow from her father, or his fresh
comments once again defending the actions of the Petain administration, which sent Jews to Nazi
concentration camps during World War II. At issue were fresh inflammatory remarks from the
older Le Pen in an interview with the far-right newspaper, Rivarol, in which he again insisted that
France's wartime leader Philippe Petain, who collaborated with the Nazis, was not a traitor. He
added to the controversy by referring to Prime Minister Manuel Valls an immigrant.
The Le Pen familial and ideological feud reached new heights at the start of May 2015 when JeanMarie Le Pen was officially suspended (but not dismissed) from the National Front party. The
older Le Pen was suspended following a disciplinary meeting of the leadership of the far right party
in which his daughter, Marine Le Pen, said that he should not be allowed to speak on behalf of the
National Front. Marine Le Pen also called for a meeting to discuss stripping her father of his title
as the honorary chairman of the National Front.
Jean-Marie Le Pen reacted to these developments by declaring he had been "disowned" by the
very political party he founded. He thus declared that he would retaliate by disowning his daughter.
He also said he hoped Marine Le Pen would lose the 2017 presidential election, and urged her to
get married and change her name. In an interview with Europe 1 radio, Jean-Marie Le Pen said,
"I'm ashamed that the president of the National Front has my name."
Note that in mid-May 2015, Jean-Marie Le Pen, announced that he would establish a new political
entity for dissident members of the National Front, which he said would not be a political party in
the classic sense of the term. In an interview with Radio Courtoisie, he said, "I will not create
another party. I will create a formation that will not compete with the FN." He explained that this
new "formation" would be a venue for the typical electorate of the National Front who believe they
do not have a voice in the current incarnation of the party under the more mainstream leadership
of Marine Le Pen.
Also in May 2015, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was well on his way to making a
political comeback. At issue was an effort to rename his conservative party, Union for a Popular
Movement or UMP. A French court blessed the effort and the party would be renamed "The
France Review 2016
France
Republicans" ahead of the 2017 presidential contest that Sarkozy hoped to win.
Sarkozy was hoping that the new name would aid in rebranding the party with more populist
symbolism by evoking France's Fifth Republic -- the official reference to the modern nation state.
But the move to rename the UMP spurred no shortage of objections with emergency moves filed
in court to block the measure. Those emergency complaints failed and although plaintiffs could
appeal the ruling, that process would be lengthy Meanwhile, the UMP would be positioned to
move forward with the rebranding effort.
The next big test came via party ratification. To that end, an overwhelming 83 percent of the party
faithful voted to support the name change. Backed by that victory, Sarkozy dismissed critics who
accused him of exploiting the symbolism of France's Fifth Republic, saying: "To those who accuse
us of confiscating the Republic, I want to respond that if they had not betrayed it, abandoned it,
degraded it, we would not have to restore it today."
It should be noted that Sarkozy's political ambitions could yet bemarred by his legal woes. Still to
be settled was the matter of a corruption investigation against Sarkozy; central to that matter were
allegations that the former French leader sought to influence judges examining his election
campaign finances in 2007. The legal issues aside, Sarkozy would also have to contend with a
power struggle within his own party. Indeed, he was expected to be challenged for the party
nomination by two former prime ministers -- Alain Juppe and Francois Fillon.
Special Report: Islamist terrorist carries out attack and decapitation at chemical plant in Lyon
On June 26, 2015, an Islamist terrorist carried out an attack at an American-owned industrial
chemical plant in the French town of Saint-Quentin-Fallavier located close to the city of Lyon.
The assailant set off an explosion as well as performed a beheading at the site of the attack. It
should be noted that the attack occurred in France on the same day that the notorious terror
group, Islamic State, carried out attacks on two other continents -- in Tunisia in northern Africa,
and in Kuwait in the Middle East.
In France, an Islamist terrorist later identified as Yassin Salhi began his campaign of terror by
crashing his vehicle into an area of the Air Products factory, which housed several cannisters of
flammable substances, prompting an explosion. As noted by French President Hollande said: "We
have no doubt that the attack was to blow up the building. It bears the hallmarks of a terrorist
attack." The terrorist inclinations of Salhi were displayed in full view when the decapitated body
of Salhi's boss was found at the gruesome scene.
The assailant, along with members of his family, were subsequently arrested by anti-terrorism
police in France. According to French authorities, Salhi was not a cooperative detainee.
France Review 2016
France
Nevertheless, an investigation was under way regarding Salhi's connections to Islamists Jihadists
and other radicals, which authorities indicated were quite vast.
Special Report: Attack on French train thwarted thanks to heroic intervention by American, British
and French travelers
On Aug. 21, 2015, an attack on a high-speed Thalys train traveling from Amsterdam to Paris was
foiled thanks to the heroic intervention of citizens of France, the United States, and the United
Kingdom.
The assailant, later identified as a 25-year old Moroccan named Ayoub El-Kahzzani, armed the
train in Belgium, and was armed with a Kalashnikov rifle, an automatic pistol with ammunition
clips and a box cutter knife. He opened fire as the train traveled thorough northern France.
Four people were injured in the ensuing melee before the assailant was first intercepted by a
French national, and then restrained by Spencer Stone, an off-duty member of the United States
Air Force, and Aleck Sharlatos, an off-duty member of the National Guard. They were aided by
a third American, Anthony Sadler, a British citizen, Chris Norman, and a French-American, Mark
Magoolian, who was badly injured in the stuggle. A French actor Jean-Hugues Anglade, who was
also aboard the train, cut his hand smashing the alarm glass as he alerted the train operator of the
emergency unfolding.
Kahzzani, who was known to French and Spanish authorities for his links to radical Islamists, and
who had traveled to Turkey (possibly with the intent to travel to Syria), was arrested at the Arras
train station. The case was turned over to anti-terrorism authorities in France.
Meanwhile, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve praised the actions of all four individuals,
noting that they were "particularly courageous and showed great bravery in very difficult
circumstances," and adding: "Without their composure we could have been confronted with a
terrible incident." All four were awarded medals for bravery by French authorities. The White
House in the United States issued a statement from President Barack Obama that read as follows:
"The president expressed his profound gratitude for the courage and quick thinking of several
passengers, including U.S. service members, who selflessly subdued the attacker." Prime Minister
David Cameron of the United Kingdom likewise issued praise for the four individuals, noting their
"extraordinary courage."
Special Report on Terror Attacks in Paris
Nov. 13, 2015, was marked by an appalling assault on democratic freedom as France's capital city
France Review 2016
France
was rocked by a spate of terrorist attacks. The notorious terror enclave Islamic State issued a claim
of responsibility. Suicide bombers and gunmen carried out simultaneous assaults on popular
restaurants, cafes, bars, a football stadium, and a concert hall across Paris, killing close to 130
people in what could only be understood as a massacre in Europe's City of Lights.
President Francois Hollande was attending a football match being played between the French and
German teams at the Stade de France when at least two explosions ensued close to the facility.
While he was safely evacuated from the venue, at least four people died in what was believed to be
suicide bombings. At a Cambodian restaurant called Le Petit Cambouge, a gun attack left several
people dead. Gun assaults also ensued at Belle Equipe, La Casa Nostra, and Le Carillon. The
worst attack took place at the Bataclan concert venue where Eagles of Death concert-goers were
held hostage and killed at gunpoint. The death toll at that venue alone numbered at least 100
victims. Seven assailants were also reported to have died, with reports of an eighth assailant at
large and en route to Belgium, as discussed below.
On Nov. 14, 2015, as information related to the attacks began to come in, French authorities said
that bloodshed was carried out by three terror teams. As stated by French Prosecutor Francois
Molins: "We can say at this stage of the investigation there were probably three coordinated teams
of terrorists behind this barbaric act." One team of three suicide bombers attempted to the Stade
de France in the northern suburbs of Paris. That attempt was unsuccessful as a security guard saw
the suicide vest on at least one of the suicide bombers as he tried to enter the stadium; that
assailant then detonated the explosives strapped to his body. The second explosion ensued soon
after. A second team of terrorists was responsible for the cafe, bar, and restaurant shootings.
Their operation entailed shooting at customers at these venues, and culminated when one member
of this team sat at a table in a restaurant and detonated the explosives strapped to his body when a
waitress approached to take his order. The third team of terrorists carried out the Bataclan
massacre.
Prosecutor Molins indicated that the terrorists used Kalashnikov assault rifles and wore explosive
vests typically used in suicide bombings. He added that at least one of the vehicles used by the
terrorists bore a Belgian license plate and thus indicated an international dimension to the plot.
That international dimension was bolstered by the identification of the aforementioned surviving
eighth assailant -- Belgian-born Salah Abdeslam -- who was generating an international manhunt.
Meanwhile, the identities of the seven deceased terrorists were slowly coming to light. The first
deceased terrorist to be identified was a French national, Ismail Omar Mostefai, who had a
criminal history and who had been flagged by French intelligence for some Islamist extremist
connections. Another four terrorists were named to be Bilal Hadfi, Samy Amimour, Brahim
Abdeslam (the brother of Salah Abdeslam who was on the run as discussed here), and Ahmad alMohammad, who was believed to be carrying a Syrian passport. Greek authorities said belonged
to a Syrian migrant who entered Europe at the island of Leros. It should be noted, though, that
France Review 2016
France
the passport at stake was later identified as a falsified document, and there were no final
conclusions as to whether or not the individual was simply posing as a migrant to enter Europe.
There were another two other terrorists who died during the attacks but remained unidentified at
the time of writing.
The mastermind of the attack was identified as Belgian-born Islamist extremist, Abdel-Hamid
Abu Oud, who was sentenced in in absentia to 20 years in prison for urging young people to join
Islamic State was also implicated in the plot. Abu Oud had ties to the top echelon of Islamic State,
including Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; he lived in the Molenbeek suburb of
Brussels, which was known to be a breeding ground for nefarious and extremist Islamist terrorists.
Since the rise of the terror enclave, Islamic State, France has felt the effects of terrorism within its
own borders. In December 2014, France was plagued by a spate of attacks by Jihadist Islamist
extremists. In response, French authorities deployed its armed forces and increased police patrols
to hotspot areas across the country. The attacks in Dijon, Tours, and Nantes left at least one
person clinically dead and more than 20 others injured. While these incidents were not
coordinated, they were at least ideologically linked -- seemingly inspired by the terror group,
Islamic State, which has urged its Jihadist sympathizers to act as "lone wolves" and attack
Westerners. Then, in January 2015, Islamists expressly aligned with the terror groups, al-Qaida
and Islamic State, killed a cadres of cartoonists at the Paris office of the satirical magazine, Charlie
Hebdo, and other victims at a Jewish Kosher supermarket in a Paris suburb. Those attacks
appeared to be more carefully orchestrated and aimed at seeking revenge against satirists daring to
exercise democratic free speech to question militant Islam. Now, less that a year later in
November 2015, Paris was again being struck by terrorism once again.
There certainly was a sense that France was entering a dark chapter and that this plague of
terrorism was unprecedented. France was no stranger to terror, having experienced no shortage of
attacks over the decades, dating back to the attempted assassination of President Charles de Gaulle
during the time of the Algerian War, and including attacks by Palestinian militants in the 1970s,
and attacks on Jewish synagogues and restaurants in the 1980s. More recently, the 1995 bombing
of a commuter train took place at the hands of the Algerian Armed Islamic Group. That being
said, the December 2014 attacks (discussed above) augured negative developments on the French
national security scene to come, with the 2015 attacks marking a new era of turmoil on the French
landscape. Whereas the Charlie Hebdo attacks inspired a sense of defiance in the French people as
they vowed to protect their country's values of liberty and democracy, the mood after the
November 2015 Paris attacks was a mix of unmitigated shock and societal trauma.
For his part, President Francois Hollande declared a national state of emergency, closed the
country's borders, and deployed thousands of military personnel across the city. Under the aegis
of the security measures, French authorities would be able to impose curfews and restrictions on
the movement of people. The French leader also urged the residents of Paris to stay indoors and
France Review 2016
France
shelter in place. Later, in a national address ahead of an emergency cabinet meeting, President
Hollande asserted "this is a horror" and characterized the attacks as "an abomination and a
barbaric act." While he stopped short of naming a terror group as being responsible, the French
leader issued the following warning: "We know where these attacks come from. There are indeed
good reasons to be afraid."
The day after the terror attacks, it was becoming increasingly clear that the Paris attacks were the
work of Islamist militants. There were certainly indications pointing in the direction of Islamist
Jihadist terrorism. First, some witnesses in Paris reported to the international media that some
assailants were heard screaming "Allah Akbar!" which would certainly be consistent with the work
of Jihadist terrorists ahead of an act of violence. Second, other witnesses claimed at least one
gunman said that the attacks were being carried out in retaliation for France's role in Syria. Third,
claims were being made by supporters of the Islamic State terrorist group via the social media
outlet, Twitter, indicating that entity may have been behind the carnage. One relevant tweet read
as follows: "The State of the caliphate hit the house of the cross." Fourth, on Nov. 14, 2015,
Islamic State expressly claimed responsibility for what could only be understood as its latest plague
of barbarism and brutality -- this one being on French soil.
In response to Islamic State's claim of responsibility, French President Hollande described the
attacks in Paris as "an act of war" and vowed a merciless response by France. He declared: "So
France will be merciless in its response to the Islamic State militants." He warned that France
would "use all means within the law.. on every battleground here and abroad together with our
allies." To that end, France wasted no time intensifying its strikes on Syria, starting with targets on
the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa. These initial strikes were carried out in cooperation with
United States forces.
In mid-November 2015, French authorities released the photograph of a Belgian-born French
national considered to be a suspect in the Paris attacks. French authorities said that Salah
Abdeslam rented a vehicle used in the attack at the Bataclan concert venue. Abdeslam was
actually stopped at the Belgian border with two other individuals, but was released in what could
only be understood as a missed opportunity. It was only after that incident that he was flagged by
French authorities in connection with the terror attacks. Salah Abdeslam could be viewed in
November 2015 as the most wanted man in the world. The evolving theory was that he was
supposed to commit a suicide attack but instead fled the scene. As a result, not only was he
wanted by international security authorities for his active role in the terror attacks in Paris, but also
by Islamic State, which was likely displeased that he failed to detonate his suicide belt. By Nov.
22, 2015, there were fears in Belgium that Abdeslam might seek to finally use that suicide belt; as a
result, Belgian authorities placed the country's capital on lockdown and were carrying out antiterrorism raids.
It should be noted that in mid-November 2015, a second vehicle, believed to be used in the
France Review 2016
France
attacks on restaurants, bars, and cafes, was found in Montreiul; inside the vehicle, which was
rented in Belgium, was a cache of weapons.
These incidents opened up an arena of discussion. Specifically, as already noted above, there
was an international trajectory being revealed, with Belgian becoming a key consideration. In this
regard, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve noted that the Paris attacks had been carried
out "by a group of individuals based in Belgium" with "accomplices in France." French Prime
Minister Manuel Valls fleshed out the plot further, noting that the terror attacks in Paris was likely
organized in Syria. In an interview with Agence France Presse, Prime Minister Valls also suggested
that the planning was more wide-ranging than simply the Paris attacks on Nov. 13, 2015. He
explained, "We know that operations were being prepared and are still being prepared, not only
against France but other European countries too." President Hollande went further, saying of the
attacks: They “were decided and planned in Syria, prepared and organized in Belgium, and
perpetrated on our soil, with French complicity."
Unlike the December 2014 attacks in France attributed to "lone wolves" inspired by Islamic State,
these November 2015 attacks appeared to have been meticulously planned and carried out by welltrained operatives. Of note was the fact that Western intelligence did not seem to have intercepted
any indications of the plot. To that end, the working theory was that Islamic State was evading
conventional intercept methods used by the United States, for example, by staying away from
phone and online use; instead, the terror network was using alternative methods to pass on
information.
The multi-sited rampage of terror in Paris was reminiscent of the horrifying attacks in India in
2008. In that case, Islamist militants from Pakistan waged a series of simultaneous terror attacks
in the heart of India's commercial capital of Mumbai (Bombay) killing 175 people. In the case of
these Paris attacks in November 2015, there was a similar style of successive acts of mass violence
with ordinary citizens going about their lives as the targets.
The Mumbai-style terror attacks in Paris were the result of a well-orchestrated and sophisticated
operation bearing the hallmarks of an established terror network. As discussed here, all eyes were
on the Islamist terror entity, Islamic State, which had both expressly claimed responsibility and
enthusiastically applauded the appalling bloodshed.
It should be noted that less than two weeks prior to the Paris attacks, Islamic State had claimed
responsibility for the downing of a Russian Metrojet airliner traveling from the Egyptian city of
Sharm-el-Sheikh, killing more than 200 people on board. Moreover, only days prior to the Paris
attacks, Islamic State claimed responsible for double bombings in a Shi'a district of the Lebanese
city of Beirut, killing more than 40 people. The Paris attacks, therefore, constituted the third arm
of a terrorist trifecta for Islamic State, presumably part of its effort to demonstrate its relevance
and resilience even as it was being subject to strikes from various international actors.
France Review 2016
France
Indeed, the terror enclave was under pressure from a United States-led international coalition, as
well as a bombing campaign by Russia. Of note was the fact that in the second week of
November 2015 Islamic State lost control of Sinjar in Iraq as a result of a fierce offensive by
Kurdish peshmerga fighters backed by United States air power. In the same period, the United
States Pentagon reported that it had targeted the "face" of Islamic State in a drone strike -- the
notorious terrorist "Jihadi John" who was shown in barbaric videotaped footage with international
hostages who were executed via decapitation. The Pentagon indicated that the drone strike was
very likely successful, thus inflicting a symbolic blow against the terror group. Meanwhile, they
were losing control in Aleppo in Syria.
While these losses were recent, the downward trajectory for Islamic State had been occurring for
several months. As such, the terror enclave's evolving imperative might be to show that it still has
power and influence. No longer able to expand its territorial advances, Islamic State may be
transforming its efforts. Rather than concentrating on building and expanding its so-called
Caliphate, Islamic State could be refocusing its ambitions in the direction of international
Jihadism. Should this working theory gain support , it would suggest an acute threat to global
security.
With such a possibility ahead, world leaders condemned the bloodshed in Paris expressed support
for France and the French people. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon denounced
"the despicable terrorist attacks" in Paris while the United Nations Security Council likewise
condemned "the barbaric and cowardly terrorist attacks" and emphasized the imperative to bring
the perpetrators of "these terrorist acts to justice." German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued a
statement noting that her thoughts were with the victims of the terrorist attack, and in a speech the
day after the attacks, promised to stand by France in the fight against terrorism. United Kingdom
Prime Minister David Cameron expressed shock over the Paris attacks and said via the social
media outlet, Twitter, "Our thoughts and prayers are with the French people. We will do whatever
we can to help."
United States President Barack Obama issued the following statement: "This is an attack not just
on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and
the universal values that we share. We stand prepared and ready to provide whatever assistance
that the government and the people of France need to respond. France is our oldest ally. The
French people have stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States time and again. And we
want to be very clear that we stand together with them in the fight against terrorism and extremism.
Paris itself represents the timeless values of human progress. Those who think that they can
terrorize the people of France or the values that they stand for are wrong. The American people
draw strength from the French people’s commitment to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness."
United States Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to France to stand in solidarity with his
France Review 2016
France
"America's oldest friend," declaring in his remarks, "Tonight we are all Parisians." He eviscerated
the terrorists of the Islamic State network, calling them "psychopathic monsters."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, "Israel is standing shoulder to shoulder with
French President Hollande and the French people in our joint war against terror." Iranian President
Hassan Rouhani cast the Paris attacks as a "crime against humanity." China's government
condemned the attacks and pledged its commitment to standing with France in the fight to combat
terrorism. President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirate dispatched
a telegram to French President Hollande promising to do "what it takes to face terrorism and
eliminate it."
In a rare convergence with the West -- which treats Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad as terrorist
groups -- all three entities condemned the Paris attacks. Hezbollah leader, Sheikh Hassan
Nasrallah, characterized the attacks as "barbaric" and predicted that “the 'Islamic State' will not last
long." Nasrallah said that the attacks in Paris and in Beirut (also attributed to Islamic State) would
only strengthen the resolve of Hezbollah against Islamic State. Hamas official, Bassem Na'eem,
also condemned the attacks in Paris, stating in a missive, "We pay our deep condolences to the
families of the victims and we wish France safety and security." Nafez Azzam from Islamic Jihad
official, declared, "I don’t think Islam is allowing this haphazard and arbitrary killing." These
responses indicated that even within Islamist extremist ranks, there remained a bizarre sense of
ethics. Indeed, all three groups had their own ideological goals and were willing to use violence at
times to achieve those goals. Yet they apparently drew the line at barbaric murder, and at the
expressed targeting of civilians -- the type of terror tactics favored by Islamic State. A more
cynical interpretation was that these groups were eager to rebrand their own efforts politically and
draw a clear distinction between themselves and brutal terrorist groups.
At home in France, massive anti-terrorism raids were going on across the country -- in the Paris
suburb of Bobigny, as well as the cities of Grenoble, Toulouse, Lyon, Strasbourg, and others -with several persons being arrested. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls explained that authorities
were using the emergency measures to probe possible terrorist connections as he said, "We are
making use of the legal framework of the state of emergency to question people who are part of
the radical jihadist movement... and all those who advocate hate of the republic."
Parallel raids and arrests were taking place in Belgium, with a focus on the Brussels suburb of
Molenbeek, which was known to be a hotbed of Islamist extremism and JIhadism.
On Nov. 18, 2015, more than 100 French commandos carried out a pre-dawn raid on an
apartment building in the Paris suburb of Saint-Deny. A seven hour siege ensued and resulted in
the deaths of two terrorists and a police dog, while at least three other terrorists were taken into
custody. The target of the raid was the orchestrator of the Paris attacks -- Abdel-Hamid Abu
Oud -- although it was not immediately known if he was among either the dead or those detained;
France Review 2016
France
indeed, it was not confirmed that he was even at the apartment. The reason for the confusion was
due to the fact that one terrorist detonated explosives at the scene, killing himself and a female
cohort. Later, French authorities noted that Abu Oud was one of the persons who died during the
police raid.
French prosecutors said that the discovery of a discarded mobile phone contributed to the
discovery of the safe house where this cell of terrorists were located. The prosecutors
subsequently indicated that the cell located at the safe house may have been planning to carry out
attacks in the La Defense business district.
French authorities made clear that Jawad Bendaoud -- the person who provided the safe house to
the terrorists -- was complicit with the Paris attacks. As such, the owner of the apartment was
being investigated for "criminal conspiracy in connection with a terrorist enterprise." As stated by
French Prosecutor Francois Molins, "Jawad Bendaoud himself welcomed the terrorists on Nov. 17
towards 22.45 pm. He could not have been in any doubt ... that he was taking part in a terrorist
organization."
Overall, the discoveries regarding the safe house, another cell of terrorists, another terror plot in
the financial district, as well as the use of yet another explosives-laden vest or belt used in suicide
attacks, made it clear that a spiderweb of terrorism had spread across Paris. As a result, anxieties
about security threats were raised even further.
By Nov. 22, 2015, French police were apparently seeking an individual traveling with a group of
Syrian refugees. The individual landed on the Greek island of Leros and was wanted in connection
with the Paris bombings. The man was believed to be the third suicide bomber to attack the Stade
de France. As November 2015 entered its fourth week, the fugitive Paris terrorist, Abdelslam,
remained on the run and successfully evading capture. Some hint of his activities may have come
to light with the discovery of an explosives belt in a dumpster to the south of Paris. Investigators
were thus speculating that it may have been belonged to Abdeslam, who discarded it before fleeing
the scene. In the same period of late November 2015, an arrest warrant was also issued in
Belgium for a man identified as Mohamed Abrini in connection with the Paris attacks. Authorities
said that Abrini was seen driving a vehicle used in the attacks and should thus be regarded as
"dangerous and probably armed."
In the aftermath of the Paris terror attacks, the horror of that event shone an inconvenient light on
the Schengen border code that allows the free passage of people within the European Union.
Accordingly, there was a need to implement security measures that would be applied across the
regional bloc. As noted by Etienne Schneider of Luxembourg, "Everyone agreed that while it was
France that was attacked, it was the whole of Europe that was the target. A national approach is
not enough. We need more."
France Review 2016
France
The European Union thus moved to increase security on travelers, intensify the collection of data
on airline passengers, and implement stricter gun control laws. There was also an agreement
forged that would facilitate greater intelligence sharing and monitor the movement of money across
-- and outside -- Europe. To that latter end, a priority issue was to cut off funding for terrorism.
At the same time, tracking the circulation of money would assist in the tracking of terrorist activity.
Meanwhile, in a rare address to the French Parliament at the Palace of Versailles, President
Hollande said he would table a bill to extend the state of emergency declared after the attacks for
three months, and he would also suggest changes to the constitution that would facilitate better
anti-terrorism probes without having to resort to declaring emergency measures. He also called for
dual nationals to be stripped of their French citizenship if they were convicted of any acts of
terrorism. Other measures under consideration included the deployment of thousands more police
and no reductions to the defense budget. As well, the French air craft carrier, the Charles de
Gaulle, was being sent to the region to assist in the mission against Islamic State.
In that particular regard, France had already intensified its strikes on Islamic State targets in Syria
and would continue to do so. To this end, France deployed its air craft carrier, the Charles de
Gaulle, to the Middle Eastern region for the purpose of supporting the effort against Islamic State.
France was not limiting its air strike campaign from the Charles de Gaulle only to Islamic State
targets in Syria, such as the terror group stronghold of Raqqa; indeed, France soon expanded its
scope to hit Islamic State targets in Ramadi and Mosul in Iraq.
The French leader vowed that France would prevail despite the worst horror unfolding on his
country's soil in recent times. President Hollande said: “The barbarians who want to disfigure it
must not be allowed to change France’s soul. He added that France's “values, culture, youth, way
of life” would stand because “terrorism will never destroy the Republic. The Republic will destroy
terrorism.” But President Hollande also made clear to state this his country was at war -- but not
with the religion of Islam. He said: “France is at war . But we are not engaged in a war of
civilizations, because these assassins do not represent any civilization.”
Overall, a general consensus was emerging. While the West, including the United States and
France, objected to President Bashar al-Assad remaining in power in Syria and blamed him for
being the root cause of the Syrian crisis, the West was willing to work with Russia, which was
actively shoring up the Assad regime militarily, in the battle against Islamic State. As noted by
French President Hollande: "Our enemy in Syria is Daesh [Islamic State]."
As November 2015 drew to a close, French President Francois Hollande traveled to the United
States to meet with President Barack Obama to discuss the threat posed by Islamic State in the
aftermath of the horrific Paris terror attacks and with the Islamist terror group threatening to go
after American targets. At the conclusion of their meeting, President Obama and President
Hollande agreed to intensify and expand their military operations against Islamic State and also to
France Review 2016
France
coordinate intelligence on domestic threats. During a joint news conference at the White House,
President Obama noted the long-standing and historic friendship between his country and France,
dating back to the 18th century and distinguishing France as the United States' oldest ally. For his
part, the French president said that he and President Obama were united in their "relentless
determination to fight terrorism anywhere and everywhere." President Hollande said, "We will not
let the world be destroyed. To face Daesh (Islamic State), we must have a common, collective and
implacable response. We must destroy Daesh wherever it is, cut its financial resources, hunt down
its leaders, dismantle its networks and reconquer the territory it controls."
Editor's Note:
The Editorial Department of CountryWatch expresses its condemnation for the horrific terror
attacks in Paris and conveys its profound condolences to the families of the victims. The Editorial
Department of CountryWatch also stands in full solidarity with the people of France.
Police foil attempted attack by Islamist extremist on anniversary of Charlie Hebdo massacre in
Paris
In January 2016, one year after the appalling terror attacks on cartoonists at the satirical magazine
Charlie Hebdo, a man attempted to carry out at attack outside a police station in the French
capital of Paris. Dressed in a fake suicide vest, the assailant was armed with a meat cleaver as he
tried to enter the police station while screaming "Allahu Akbar" (God is Greatest). Attuned to the
likely security threat posed by the man, police opened fire and neutralized him as he ran in their
direction. The assailant was later identified as Moroccan-born Ali Sallah, who was described as
homeless and quite likely mentally unstable. While Sallah had no known links to radical Islam,
according to French authorities, the timing of the attack on the one year anniversary of the Charlie
Hebdo horror, as well as the man's rallying call, indicated that he may have been, in some form or
fashion, inspired by Islamist extremism. French authorities, however, were quite careful not to
draw conclusions about the motivations of Sallah.
France at this time was still reeling from the November 2015 massacre that had occurred at the
hands of a cabal of Islamist Jihadists aligned with Islamic State, which left 130 people dead across
Paris. While many of the assailants in those attacks died the night of the bloodshed, one terrorist,
Saleh Abdelslam remained a fugitive. Investigators in Belgium were said to have uncovered a
bomb factory in the Scharbeek district of Brussels that may well have been used as a hideout by
Abdelslam while he was on the run. There, they were able to locate his fingerprint along with
three suicide belts, as well as traces of explosives.
Fugitive terrorist from Paris attacks apprehended in Belgium
France Review 2016
France
On March 18, 2016, the fugitive terrorist from the horrific Paris terror attacks was arrested during
a clash with police in the Belgian capital city of Brussels. Going back to Nov. 13, 2015, Islamist
terrorists aligned with Islamic State carried out an appalling assault on democratic freedom as
France's capital city. Suicide bombers and gunmen carried out simultaneous assaults on popular
All but one assailant died in the attacks while the surviving terror suspect, Salah Abdeslam, was
believed to have fled the scene for Belgium, despite being stopped and then allowed to move on as
he departed in a car with two other individuals. In the months that followed the Paris attacks,
French and Belgian authorities have carried out crackdowns in both countries aimed at
apprehending the world's most-wanted fugitive along with other Islamist terror cells. The general
consensus, though, was that Abdeslam was very likely either in Belgium or had escaped to Syria.
Now, in March 2016, that effort saw success with the arrest of Abdeslam, who was wounded in a
shoot-out with police in the Molenbeek area of Brussels, which was known to be a hotbed of
Islamist extremists. Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel hailed the capture of Abdeslam and
two other individuals as "a very important result in the battle for democracy." French President
Francois Hollande said that he hoped Abdeslam would be extradited to France to face justice.
Along that same vein, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said "Abdeslam will have to
answer to French justice for his acts."
It should be noted that French and Belgian authorities have long speculated that Abdeslam had
second thoughts or a suicide very malfunction that prevented him from carrying out his part in the
attacks, and the fleeing the scene. Once he was securely in police custody, reports indicated that
Abdeslam, who was supposed to blow himself up at the sports stadium terror site changed his
mind. In an interview with Reuters News, French investigator, Francois Molins. said, "He wanted
to blow himself up at the Stade de France and ... backed out." Of note was the fact that he
sought refuge with individuals linked with another terror cell and was likely aware of other terror
plots being planned this network of terrorists.
Note that on March 31, 2016 it was reported that Abdelslam would be extradited from Belgium to
France to face justice.
NOTE:
See "Foreign Relations" section for information related to France's role in multilateral negotiations
related to Iran's controversial nuclear program, Western sanctions that were levied against Russia
amidst the Ukrainian crisis, its military engagement against Islamists in Mali, and most recently, its
France Review 2016
France
engagement in Syria against Islamic States as a result of terrorism in the homeland.
NOTE:
See "Environmental Issues" section for information related to France's role in the development of
the landmark Paris Agreement intended to address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
-- April 2016
Written by Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief. See Bibliography for list of research
sources.
The Political Risk Index is a proprietary index measuring the level of risk posed to governments,
corporations, and investors, based on a myriad of political and economic factors. The Political Risk
Index is calculated using an established methodology by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is
based on varied criteria* including the following consideration: political stability, political
representation, democratic accountability, freedom of expression, security and crime, risk of
conflict, human development, jurisprudence and regulatory transparency, economic risk, foreign
investment considerations, possibility of sovereign default, and corruption. Scores are assigned
from 0-10 using the aforementioned criteria. A score of 0 marks the highest political risk, while a
score of 10 marks the lowest political risk. Stated differently, countries with the lowest scores pose
the greatest political risk. A score of 0 marks the most dire level of political risk and an ultimate
nadir, while a score of 10 marks the lowest possible level of political risk, according to this
proprietary index. Rarely will there be scores of 0 or 10 due to the reality that countries contain
complex landscapes; as such, the index offers a range of possibilities ranging from lesser to greater
risk.
France Review 2016
France
France Review 2016
Country
Assessment
Afghanistan
2
Albania
4
Algeria
6
Andorra
9
Angola
4
Antigua
8
Argentina
4
Armenia
4-5
Australia
9.5
Austria
9.5
Azerbaijan
4
Bahamas
8.5
Bahrain
6
Bangladesh
3.5
Barbados
8.5-9
France
France Review 2016
Belarus
3
Belgium
9
Belize
8
Benin
5
Bhutan
5
Bolivia
5
Bosnia-Herzegovina
4
Botswana
7
Brazil
7
Brunei
7
Bulgaria
6
Burkina Faso
4
Burma (Myanmar)
4.5
Burundi
3
Cambodia
4
Cameroon
5
Canada
9.5
Cape Verde
6
France
France Review 2016
Central African Republic
3
Chad
4
Chile
9
China
7
China: Hong Kong
8
China: Taiwan
8
Colombia
7
Comoros
5
Congo DRC
3
Congo RC
4
Costa Rica
8
Cote d'Ivoire
4.5
Croatia
7
Cuba
4-4.5
Cyprus
5
Czech Republic
8
Denmark
9.5
Djibouti
4.5
France
France Review 2016
Dominica
7
Dominican Republic
6
East Timor
5
Ecuador
6
Egypt
5
El Salvador
7
Equatorial Guinea
4
Eritrea
3
Estonia
8
Ethiopia
4
Fiji
5
Finland
9
Fr.YugoslavRep.Macedonia
5
France
9
Gabon
5
Gambia
4
Georgia
5
Germany
9.5
France
France Review 2016
Ghana
6
Greece
4.5-5
Grenada
8
Guatemala
6
Guinea
3.5
Guinea-Bissau
3.5
Guyana
4.5
Haiti
3.5
Holy See (Vatican)
9
Honduras
4.5-5
Hungary
7
Iceland
8.5-9
India
7.5-8
Indonesia
6
Iran
3.5-4
Iraq
2.5-3
Ireland
8-8.5
Israel
8
France
France Review 2016
Italy
7.5
Jamaica
6.5-7
Japan
9
Jordan
6.5
Kazakhstan
6
Kenya
5
Kiribati
7
Korea, North
1
Korea, South
8
Kosovo
4
Kuwait
7
Kyrgyzstan
4.5
Laos
4.5
Latvia
7
Lebanon
5.5
Lesotho
6
Liberia
3.5
Libya
2
France
France Review 2016
Liechtenstein
9
Lithuania
7.5
Luxembourg
9
Madagascar
4
Malawi
4
Malaysia
8
Maldives
4.5
Mali
4
Malta
8
Marshall Islands
6
Mauritania
4.5-5
Mauritius
7
Mexico
6.5
Micronesia
7
Moldova
5
Monaco
9
Mongolia
5
Montenegro
6
France
France Review 2016
Morocco
6.5
Mozambique
4.5-5
Namibia
6.5-7
Nauru
6
Nepal
4
Netherlands
9.5
New Zealand
9.5
Nicaragua
5
Niger
4
Nigeria
4.5
Norway
9.5
Oman
7
Pakistan
3.5
Palau
7
Panama
7.5
Papua New Guinea
5
Paraguay
6.5-7
Peru
7
France
France Review 2016
Philippines
6
Poland
8
Portugal
7.5
Qatar
7.5
Romania
5.5
Russia
5.5
Rwanda
5
Saint Kitts and Nevis
8
Saint Lucia
8
Saint Vincent and Grenadines
8
Samoa
7
San Marino
9
Sao Tome and Principe
5.5
Saudi Arabia
6
Senegal
6
Serbia
5
Seychelles
7
Sierra Leone
4.5
France
France Review 2016
Singapore
9
Slovak Republic (Slovakia)
8
Slovenia
8
Solomon Islands
6
Somalia
2
South Africa
7
Spain
7.5
Sri Lanka
5
Sudan
3.5
Suriname
5
Swaziland
5
Sweden
9.5
Switzerland
9.5
Syria
2
Tajikistan
4.5
Tanzania
6
Thailand
6.5
Togo
4.5
France
France Review 2016
Tonga
7
Trinidad and Tobago
8
Tunisia
6
Turkey
7
Turkmenistan
4.5
Tuvalu
7
Uganda
6
Ukraine
3.5-4
United Arab Emirates
7
United Kingdom
9
United States
9.5
Uruguay
8
Uzbekistan
4
Vanuatu
7
Venezuela
4
Vietnam
5
Yemen
3
Zambia
4.5
France
Zimbabwe
3
*Methodology
The Political Risk Index is calculated by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on the
combined scoring of varied criteria as follows -1. political stability (record of peaceful transitions of power, ability of government to stay in office
and carry out policies as a result of productive executive-legislative relationship, perhaps with
popular support vis a vis risk of government collapse)
2. political representation (right of suffrage, free and fair elections, multi-party participation, and
influence of foreign powers)
3. democratic accountability (record of respect for political rights, human rights, and civil liberties,
backed by constitutional protections)
4. freedom of expression (media freedom and freedom of expression, right to dissent or express
political opposition, backed by constitutional protections)
5. security and crime (the degree to which a country has security mechanisms that ensures safety
of citizens and ensures law and order, without resorting to extra-judicial measures)
6. risk of conflict (the presence of conflict; record of coups or civil disturbances; threat of war;
threats posed by internal or external tensions; threat or record of terrorism or insurgencies)
7. human development (quality of life; access to education; socio-economic conditions; systemic
concern for the status of women and children)
8. jurisprudence and regulatory transparency (the impartiality of the legal system, the degree of
transparency within the regulatory system of a country and the durability of that structure)
9. economic conditions (economic stability, investment climate, degree of nationalization of
industries, property rights, labor force development)
10. corruption ( the degree of corruption in a country and/or efforts by the government to address
graft and other irregularities)
Editor's Note:
France Review 2016
France
As of 2015, the current climate of upheaval internationally -- both politically and economically -has affected the ratings for several countries across the world.
North Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Zimbabwe -- retain their low rankings.
Several Middle Eastern and North African countries, such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq
and Yemen were downgraded in recent years due to political instability occurring in the "season of
unrest" sweeping the region since 2011 and continuing today. The worst downgrades affected
Syria where civil war is at play, along with the rampage of terror being carried out by Islamist
terrorists who have also seized control over part of Syrian territory. Iraq has been further
downgraded due to the rampage of Islamist terrorists and their takeover of wide swaths of Iraqi
territory. Libya has also been downgraded further due to its slippage into failed state status; at
issue in Libya have been an ongoing power struggle between rival militias. Yemen continues to
hold steady with a poor ranking due to continued unrest at the hands of Houthi rebels,
secessinionists, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, and Islamic State. Its landscape has been
further complicated by the fact that it is now the site of a proxy war between Iran and Saudi
Arabia. Conversely, Tunisia and Egypt have seen slight upgrades as these countries stabilize.
In Africa, Zimbabwe continues to be one of the bleak spots of the world with the Mugabe regime
effectively destroying the country's once vibrant economy, and miring Zimbabwe with an
exceedingly high rate of inflation, debilitating unemployment, devolving public services, and critical
food shortages; rampant crime and political oppression round out the landscape. Somalia also
sports a poor ranking due to the continuing influence of the terror group, al-Shabab, which was not
operating across the border in Kenya. On the upside, Nigeria, which was ineffectively dealing with
the threat posed by the terror group, Boko Haram, was making some strides on the national
security front with its new president at the helm. Mali was slightly upgraded due to its efforts to
return to constitutional order following the 2012 coup and to neutralize the threat of separatists and
Islamists. But the Central African Republic was downgraded due to the takeover of the
government by Muslim Seleka rebels and a continued state of lawlessness in that country. South
Sudan -- the world's newest nation state -- has not been officially included in this assessment;
however, it can be unofficially assessed to be in the vicinity of "3" due to its manifold political and
economic challenges. Burkina Faso, Burundi and Guinea have been downgraded due to political
unrest, with Guinea also having to deal with the burgeoning Ebola crisis.
In Europe, Ukraine was downgraded due to the unrest facing that country following its Maidan
revolution that triggered a pro-Russian uprising in the eastern part of the country. Russia was also
implicated in the Ukrainian crisis due to its intervention on behalf of pro-Russian separatists, as
well as its annexation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Strains on the infrastructure of
southern and eastern European countries, such as Serbia, Croatia, and Hungary, due to an influx of
France Review 2016
France
refugees was expected to pose social and economic challenges, and slight downgrades were made
accordingly. So too, a corruption crisis for the Romanian prime minister has affected the ranking
of that country. Meanwhile, the rankings for Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy were maintained
due to debt woes and the concomitant effect on the euro zone. Greece, another euro zone nation,
was earlier downgraded due to its sovereign debt crisis; however, no further downgrade was added
since the country was able to successfully forge a bailout rescue deal with creditor institutions.
Cyprus' exposure to Greek banks yielded a downgrade in its case.
In Asia, Nepal was downgraded in response to continuous political instability and a constitutional
crisis that prevails well after landmark elections were held. Both India and China retain their
rankings; India holds a slightly higher ranking than China due to its record of democratic
representation and accountability. Increasing violence and political instability in Pakistan resulted in
a downgrade for this country's already low rating. Meanwhile, Singapore retained its strong
rankings due to its continued effective stewardship of the economy and political stability.
In the Americas, ongoing political and economic woes, as well as crime and corruption have
affected the rankings for Mexico , Guatemala, and Brazil. Argentina was downgraded due to its
default on debt following the failure of talks with bond holders. Venezuela was downgraded due to
its mix of market unfriendly policies and political oppression. For the moment, the United States
maintains a strong ranking along with Canada, and most of the English-speaking countries of the
Caribbean; however, a renewed debt ceiling crisis could cause the United States to be downgraded
in a future edition. Finally, a small but significant upgrade was attributed to Cuba due to its recent
pro-business reforms and its normalization of ties with the Unitd States.
Source:
Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com
Updated:
2015
Political Stability
Political Stability
France Review 2016
France
The Political Stability Index is a proprietary index measuring a country's level of stability,
standard of good governance, record of constitutional order, respect for human rights, and overall
strength of democracy. The Political StabilityIndex is calculated using an established methodology*
by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on a given country's record of peaceful
transitions of power, ability of a government to stay in office and carry out its policies vis a vis risk
credible risks of government collapse. Threats include coups, domestic violence and instability,
terrorism, etc. This index measures the dynamic between the quality of a country's government
and the threats that can compromise and undermine stability. Scores are assigned from 0-10 using
the aforementioned criteria. A score of 0 marks the lowest level of political stability and an
ultimate nadir, while a score of 10 marks the highest level of political stability possible, according to
this proprietary index. Rarely will there be scores of 0 or 10 due to the reality that countries
contain complex landscapes; as such, the index offers a range of possibilities ranging from lesser to
greater stability.
France Review 2016
Country
Assessment
Afghanistan
2
Albania
4.5-5
Algeria
5
Andorra
9.5
Angola
4.5-5
Antigua
8.5-9
Argentina
7
Armenia
5.5
Australia
9.5
France
France Review 2016
Austria
9.5
Azerbaijan
5
Bahamas
9
Bahrain
6
Bangladesh
4.5
Barbados
9
Belarus
4
Belgium
9
Belize
8
Benin
5
Bhutan
5
Bolivia
6
Bosnia-Herzegovina
5
Botswana
8.5
Brazil
7
Brunei
8
Bulgaria
7.5
Burkina Faso
4
France
France Review 2016
Burma (Myanmar)
4.5
Burundi
4
Cambodia
4.5-5
Cameroon
6
Canada
9.5
Cape Verde
6
3
Chad
4.5
Chile
9
China
7
China: Hong Kong
8
China: Taiwan
8
Colombia
7.5
Comoros
5
Congo DRC
3
Congo RC
5
Costa Rica
9.5
Cote d'Ivoire
3.5
France
France Review 2016
Croatia
7.5
Cuba
4.5
Cyprus
8
Czech Republic
8.5
Denmark
9.5
Djibouti
5
Dominica
8.5
Dominican Republic
7
East Timor
5
Ecuador
7
Egypt
4.5-5
El Salvador
7.5-8
Equatorial Guinea
4.5
Eritrea
4
Estonia
9
Ethiopia
4.5
Fiji
5
Finland
9
France
France Review 2016
Fr.YugoslavRep.Macedonia
6.5
France
9
Gabon
5
Gambia
4.5
Georgia
5
Germany
9.5
Ghana
7
Greece
6
Grenada
8.5
Guatemala
7
Guinea
3.5-4
Guinea-Bissau
4
Guyana
6
Haiti
3.5-4
Holy See (Vatican)
9.5
Honduras
6
Hungary
7.5
Iceland
9
France
France Review 2016
India
8
Indonesia
7
Iran
3.5
Iraq
2.5
Ireland
9.5
Israel
8
Italy
8.5-9
Jamaica
8
Japan
9
Jordan
6
Kazakhstan
6
Kenya
5
Kiribati
8
Korea, North
2
Korea, South
8.5
Kosovo
5.5
Kuwait
7
Kyrgyzstan
5
France
France Review 2016
Laos
5
Latvia
8.5
Lebanon
5.5
Lesotho
5
Liberia
3.5-4
Libya
2
Liechtenstein
9
Lithuania
9
Luxembourg
9.5
Madagascar
4
Malawi
5
Malaysia
8
Maldives
4.5-5
Mali
4.5-5
Malta
9
Marshall Islands
8
Mauritania
6
Mauritius
8
France
France Review 2016
Mexico
6.5-7
Micronesia
8
Moldova
5.5
Monaco
9.5
Mongolia
6.5-7
Montenegro
8
Morocco
7
Mozambique
5
Namibia
8.5
Nauru
8
Nepal
4.5
Netherlands
9.5
New Zealand
9.5
Nicaragua
6
Niger
4.5
Nigeria
4.5
Norway
9.5
Oman
7
France
France Review 2016
Pakistan
3
Palau
8
Panama
8.5
Papua New Guinea
6
Paraguay
8
Peru
7.5
Philippines
6
Poland
9
Portugal
9
Qatar
7
Romania
7
Russia
6
Rwanda
5
9
Saint Lucia
9
9
Samoa
8
San Marino
9.5
France
France Review 2016
7
Saudi Arabia
6
Senegal
7.5
Serbia
6.5
Seychelles
8
Sierra Leone
4.5
Singapore
9.5
8.5
Slovenia
9
Solomon Islands
6.5-7
Somalia
2
South Africa
7.5
Spain
9
Sri Lanka
5
Sudan
3
Suriname
5
Swaziland
5
Sweden
9.5
France
France Review 2016
Switzerland
9.5
Syria
2
Tajikistan
4.5
Tanzania
6
Thailand
6
Togo
5
Tonga
7
Trinidad and Tobago
8
Tunisia
5
Turkey
7.5
Turkmenistan
5
Tuvalu
8.5
Uganda
6
Ukraine
3.5-4
7
United Kingdom
9
United States
9
Uruguay
8.5
France
Uzbekistan
4
Vanuatu
8.5
Venezuela
4.5-5
Vietnam
4.5
Yemen
2.5
Zambia
5
Zimbabwe
3
*Methodology
The Political Stability Index is calculated by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on the
combined scoring of varied criteria as follows -1. record of peaceful transitions of power ( free and fair elections; adherence to political accords)
2. record of democratic representation, presence of instruments of democracy; systemic
accountability
3. respect for human rights; respect for civil rights
4. strength of the system of jurisprudence, adherence to constitutional order, and good governance
5. ability of a government to stay in office and carry out its policies vis a vis risk credible risks of
government collapse (i.e. government stability versus a country being deemed "ungovernable")
6. threat of coups, insurgencies, and insurrection
7. level of unchecked crime and corruption
8. risk of terrorism and other threats to national security
France Review 2016
France
9. relationship with regional powers and international community; record of bilateral or multilateral
cooperation
10. degree of economic strife (i.e. economic and financial challenges)
Editor's Note:
As of 2015, the current climate of upheaval internationally -- both politically and economically -has affected the ratings for several countries across the world. The usual suspects -- North Korea,
Afghanistan, and Somalia -- retain their low rankings. The reclusive and ultra-dictatorial North
Korean regime, which has terrified the world with its nuclear threats, has exhibited internal
instability. Of note was a cut-throat purge of hundreds of high ranking officials deemed to be a
threat to Kim Jung-un. Despite their attempts to recover from years of lawlessness, war, and
warlordism, both Afghanistan and Somalia continue to be beset by terrorism and turmoil. In
Afghanistan, while international forces have seen success in the effort against the terror group, alQaida, the other Islamist extremist group, the Taliban, continues to carry out a vicious insurgency
using terrorism. In Somalia, while the government attempts to do the nation's business, the terror
group, al-Shabab continues to make its presence known not only in Somalia, but across the border
into Kenya with devastating results/ Also in this category is Iraq, which continues to be rocked
by horrific violence and terrorism at the hands of Islamic State, which has taken over wide swaths
of Iraqi territory.
Syria, Libya, and Yemen have been added to this unfortunate echelon of the world's most
politically unstable countries. Syria has been mired by the twin hazards of 1. a civil war as rebels
oppose the Assad regime; and 2. the rampage of terror being carried out by Islamic State, which
also seized control over vast portions of Syrian territory. Meanwhile, the post-Qaddhafi landscape
of Libya has devolved into chaos as rival militias battle for control -- the elected government of the
country notwithstanding. Rounding out this grim triad is Yemen, which was dealing with a Houthi
rebellion, secesionists in the south, as well as the threat of terrorism from al-Qaida in the Arabian
Peninsula as well as Islamic State, while also being the site of a proxy war between Shi'a Iran and
Sunni Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile, several Middle Eastern and North African countries, such as Tunisia, Egypt, and
Bahrain were downgraded in recent years due to political instability occurring in the "season of
unrest" sweeping the region since 2011 and continuing today. All three of these countries have
stabilized in recent years and have been upgraded accordingly. In Bahrain, the landscape had
calmed. In Egypt, the secular military-backed government has generated criticism for its
crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood; however, the country had ratified the presidency via
democratic elections and were on track to hold parliamentary elections as the country moved along
the path of democratization. Perhaps the most impressive story was coming out of Tunisia -- the
France Review 2016
France
country whose Jasmine Revolution sparked the entire Arab Spring -- and where after a few years
of strife, a new progressive constitution was passed into law and a secular government had been
elected to power. Tunisia, Egypt, and Bahrain have seen slight upgrades as these countries
stabilize.
In Africa, the Central African Republic was downgraded the previous year due to the takeover of
the government by Muslim Seleka rebels. Although the country has been trying to emerge from
this crisis, the fact of the matter was that it was difficult to halt the precipitous decline into
lawlessness in that country. Zimbabwe has maintained its consistently poor ranking due to the
dictatorial regime of Mugabe, who continues to hold a tight grip on power, intimidates the
opposition, squashes dissent, and oppresses the white farmer population of the country. Moving in
a slightly improved direction is Nigeria, which has sported abysmal ratings due to the government's
fecklessness in dealing with the threat posed by the Islamist terror group, Boko Haram. Under its
newly-elected government, there appears to be more of a concerted effort to make national
security a priority action item. Mali was also slightly upgraded due to its efforts to return to
constitutional order following the 2012 coup and to neutralize the threat of separatists and
Islamists. Political instability has visited Burkina Faso and Burundi as the leaders of those
countries attempted to side-step constitutional limits to hold onto power. In Burundi, an attempted
coup ensued but quelled, and the president won a (questionable) new term in office; unrest has
since punctuated the landscape. In Burkina Faso, the political climate has turned stormy as a result
of a successful coup that ended the rule of the president, and then a putsch against the transitional
government. These two African countries have been downgraded as a result.
It should be noted that the African country of South Sudan -- the world's newest nation state -- has
not been officially included in this assessment; however, it can be unofficially assessed to be in the
vicinity of "3" due to its manifold political and economic challenges. Guinea has endured poor
rankings throughout, but was slightly downgraded further over fears of social unrest and the Ebola
heath crisis.
In Europe, Ukraine was downgraded due to the unrest facing that country following its Maidan
revolution that triggered a pro-Russian uprising in the eastern part of the country. Russia was also
implicated in the Ukrainian crisis due to its intervention on behalf of pro-Russian separatists, as
well as its annexation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Serbia and Albania were slightly
downgraded due to eruptions of unrest, while Romania was slightly downgraded on the basis of
corruption charges against the prime minister. Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy were downgraded
due to debt woes and the concomitant effect on the euro zone. Greece, another euro zone nation,
was downgraded the previous year due to its sovereign debt crisis; however, the country
successfully forged a rescue deal with international creditors and stayed within the Euro zone.
Greek voters rewarded the hitherto unknown upstart party at the polls for these efforts. As a
result, Greece was actually upgraded slightly as it proved to the world that it could endure the
political and economic storms. Meanwhile, Germany, France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom,
France Review 2016
France
the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries continue to post impressive ranking consistent
with these countries' strong records of democracy, freedom, and peaceful transfers of power.
In Asia, Nepal was downgraded in response to continuous political instability well after landmark
elections that prevails today. Cambodia was very slighly downgraded due to post-election
instability that has resulted in occasional flares of violence. Despite the "trifecta of tragedy" in
Japan in 2011 -- the earthquake, the ensuing tsunami, and the resulting nuclear crisis -- and the
appreciable destabilization of the economic and political terrain therein, this country has only
slightly been downgraded. Japan's challenges have been assessed to be transient, the government
remains accountable, and there is little risk of default. Both India and China retain their rankings;
India holds a slightly higher ranking than China due to its record of democratic representation and
accountability. Increasing violence and political instability in Pakistan resulted in a downgrade for
this country's already low rating.
In the Americas, Haiti retained its downgraded status due to ongoing political and economic woes.
Mexico was downgraded due to its alarming rate of crime. Guatemala was downgraded due to
charges of corruption, the arrest of the president, and uncertainty over the outcome of elections.
Brazil was downgraded due to the corruption charges erupting on the political landscape, the
stalling of the economy, and the increasingly loud calls for the impeachment of President
Rousseff. Argentina was downgraded due to its default on debt following the failure of talks with
bond holders. Venezuela was downgraded due to the fact that the country's post-Chavez
government is every bit as autocratic and nationalistic, but even more inclined to oppress its
political opponents. Colombia was upgraded slightly due to efforts aimed at securing a peace deal
with the FARC insurgents. A small but significant upgrade was attributed to Cuba due to its recent
pro-business reforms and its normalization of ties with the Unitd States. Meanwhile, the United
States, Canada, Costa Rica, Panama, and most of the English-speaking countries of the Caribbean
retain their strong rankings due to their records of stability and peaceful transfers of power.
In the Pacific, Fiji was upgraded due to its return to constitutional order and democracy with the
holding of the first elections in eight years.
In Oceania, Maldives has been slightly downgraded due to the government's continued and rather
relentless persecution of the country's former pro-democracy leader - former President Nasheed.
Source:
Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com
Updated:
France Review 2016
France
2015
Freedom Rankings
Freedom Rankings
Freedom in the World
Editor's Note: This ranking by Freedom House quantifies political freedom and civil liberties into a
single combined index on each sovereign country's level of freedom and liberty. The initials "PR"
and "CL" stand for Political Rights and Civil Liberties, respectively. The number 1 represents the
most free countries and the number 7 represents the least free. Several countries fall in the
continuum in between. The freedom ratings reflect an overall judgment based on survey results.
Country
Afghanistan
PR
6?
CL
Freedom Status
6
Not Free
Albania*
3
3
Partly Free
Algeria
6
5
Not Free
Andorra*
1
1
Free
Angola
6
5
Not Free
2
Free
Antigua and Barbuda*
France Review 2016
3?
Trend
Arrow
France
Argentina*
2
2
Free
Armenia
6
4
Partly Free
Australia*
1
1
Free
Austria*
1
1
Free
Azerbaijan
6
5
Not Free
Bahamas*
1
1
Free
Bahrain
6?
5
Not Free ?
Bangladesh*
3?
4
Partly Free
Barbados*
1
1
Free
Belarus
7
6
Not Free
Belgium*
1
1
Free
Belize*
1
2
Free
Benin*
2
2
Free
Bhutan
4
5
Partly Free
Bolivia*
3
3
Partly Free
Bosnia-Herzegovina*
4
3
Partly Free
2
Free
2
Free
Botswana*
Brazil*
France Review 2016
3?
2
France
Brunei
6
5
Not Free
Bulgaria*
2
2
Free
Burkina Faso
5
3
Partly Free
Burma
7
7
Not Free
Burundi*
4
5
Partly Free
⇑
Cambodia
6
5
Not Free
⇓
Cameroon
6
6
Not Free
Canada*
1
1
Free
Cape Verde*
1
1
Free
5
5
Partly Free
Chad
7
6
Not Free
Chile*
1
1
Free
China
7
6
Not Free
Colombia*
3
4
Partly Free
Comoros*
3
4
Partly Free
Congo (Brazzaville )
6
5
Not Free
⇓
Congo (Kinshasa)
6
6
Not Free
⇓
Costa Rica*
1
1
Free
France Review 2016
France
Cote d’Ivoire
Croatia*
6
1?
5
Not Free
2
Free
Cuba
7
6
Not Free
Cyprus*
1
1
Free
Czech Republic*
1
1
Free
Denmark*
1
1
Free
Djibouti
5
5
Partly Free
Dominica*
1
1
Free
Dominican Republic*
2
2
Free
East Timor*
3
4
Partly Free
Ecuador*
3
3
Partly Free
Egypt
6
5
Not Free
El Salvador*
2
3
Free
Equatorial Guinea
7
7
Not Free
Eritrea
7
7?
Not Free
Estonia*
1
1
Free
Ethiopia
5
5
Partly Free
Fiji
6
4
Partly Free
France Review 2016
⇓
⇓
France
Finland*
1
1
Free
France*
1
1
Free
Gabon
6
5?
The Gambia
5
5?
Partly Free
Georgia
4
4
Partly Free
Germany*
1
1
Free
Ghana*
1
2
Free
Greece*
1
2
Free
Grenada*
1
2
Free
4?
4
Partly Free
Guinea
7
6?
Guinea-Bissau*
4
4
Partly Free
Guyana*
2
3
Free
Haiti*
4
5
Partly Free
Honduras
4?
4?
Partly Free
Hungary*
1
1
Free
Iceland*
1
1
Free
India*
2
3
Free
Guatemala*
France Review 2016
Not Free ?
Not Free
France
Indonesia*
2
3
Free
Iran
6
6
Not Free
Iraq
5?
6
Not Free
Ireland*
1
1
Free
Israel*
1
2
Free
Italy*
1
2
Free
Jamaica*
2
3
Free
Japan*
1
2
Free
Jordan
6?
5
Not Free ?
Kazakhstan
6
5
Not Free
Kenya
4
4?
Kiribati*
1
1
Kosovo
5?
4?
Partly Free ?
Kuwait
4
4
Partly Free
6?
5?
Not Free ?
Laos
7
6
Not Free
Latvia*
2
1
Free
Lebanon
5
3?
Kyrgyzstan
France Review 2016
⇓
⇓
Partly Free
Free
Partly Free
France
Lesotho*
3?
3
Partly Free ?
Liberia*
3
4
Partly Free
Libya
7
7
Not Free
Liechtenstein*
1
1
Free
Lithuania*
1
1
Free
Luxembourg*
1
1
Free
Macedonia*
3
3
Partly Free
Madagascar
6?
4?
Partly Free
Malawi*
3?
4
Partly Free
Malaysia
4
4
Partly Free
Maldives*
3?
4
Partly Free
Mali*
2
3
Free
Malta*
1
1
Free
Marshall Islands*
1
1
Free
Mauritania
6
5
Not Free
Mauritius*
1
2
Free
Mexico*
2
3
Free
Micronesia*
1
1
Free
France Review 2016
⇑
⇓
France
Moldova*
3?
4
Partly Free
Monaco*
2
1
Free
Mongolia*
2
2
Free
Montenegro*
3
2?
Free ?
Morocco
5
4
Partly Free
4?
3
Partly Free
Namibia*
2
2
Free
Nauru*
1
1
Free
Nepal
4
4
Partly Free
Netherlands*
1
1
Free
New Zealand*
1
1
Free
Nicaragua*
4
4?
Partly Free
5?
4
Partly Free
Nigeria
5
4
Partly Free
⇓
North Korea
7
7
Not Free
⇓
Norway*
1
1
Free
Oman
6
5
Not Free
Pakistan
4
5
Partly Free
Mozambique
Niger
France Review 2016
⇑
⇓
France
Palau*
1
1
Free
Panama*
1
2
Free
Papua New Guinea*
4
3
Partly Free
Paraguay*
3
3
Partly Free
Peru*
2
3
Free
Philippines
4
3
Partly Free
Poland*
1
1
Free
Portugal*
1
1
Free
Qatar
6
5
Not Free
Romania*
2
2
Free
Russia
6
5
Not Free
Rwanda
6
5
Not Free
Saint Kitts and Nevis*
1
1
Free
Saint Lucia*
1
1
Free
Saint Vincent and
Grenadines*
2
1
Free
Samoa*
2
2
Free
San Marino*
1
1
Free
Sao Tome and Principe*
2
2
Free
France Review 2016
⇓
⇓
France
Saudi Arabia
7
6
Not Free
Senegal*
3
3
Partly Free
Serbia*
2?
2
Free
Seychelles*
3
3
Partly Free
Sierra Leone*
3
3
Partly Free
Singapore
5
4
Partly Free
Slovakia*
1
1
Free
Slovenia*
1
1
Free
Solomon Islands
4
3
Partly Free
Somalia
7
7
Not Free
South Africa*
2
2
Free
South Korea*
1
2
Free
Spain*
1
1
Free
Sri Lanka*
4
4
Partly Free
Sudan
7
7
Not Free
Suriname*
2
2
Free
Swaziland
7
5
Not Free
Sweden*
1
1
Free
France Review 2016
⇓
France
Switzerland*
1
1
Free
Syria
7
6
Not Free
Taiwan*
1?
2?
Tajikistan
6
5
Not Free
Tanzania
4
3
Partly Free
Thailand
5
4
Partly Free
Togo
5
4?
Partly Free
Tonga
5
3
Partly Free
Trinidad and Tobago*
2
2
Free
Tunisia
7
5
Not Free
Turkey*
3
3
Partly Free
Turkmenistan
7
7
Not Free
Tuvalu*
1
1
Free
Uganda
5
4
Partly Free
Ukraine*
3
2
Free
6
5
Not Free
United Kingdom*
1
1
Free
United States*
1
1
Free
France Review 2016
⇓
Free
⇓
France
Uruguay*
1
1
Free
Uzbekistan
7
7
Not Free
Vanuatu*
2
2
Free
Venezuela
5?
4
Partly Free
Vietnam
7
5
Not Free
Yemen
6?
5
Not Free ?
3
4?
6?
6
Zambia*
Zimbabwe
⇓
Partly Free
Not Free
Methodology:
PR and CL stand for political rights and civil liberties, respectively; 1 represents the most free and
7 the least free rating. The ratings reflect an overall judgment based on survey results.
? ? up or down indicates a change in political rights, civil liberties, or status since the last survey.
⇑ ⇓ up or down indicates a trend of positive or negative changes that took place but that were
not sufficient to result in a change in political rights or civil liberties ratings of 1-7.
* indicates a country’s status as an electoral democracy.
Source:
This data is derived from the latest edition of Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2010
edition.
Available at URL: http://www.freedomhouse.org
Updated:
Reviewed in 2015
France Review 2016
France
Human Rights
Overview of Human Rights in France
France is a multiparty constitutional democracy. The government works to respect the civil and
human rights of its citizens and enjoys a generally very good record of human rights. However,
there were a few abuses that were reported recently.
Complaints of police brutality and abuse were on the rise in the past years. Racially motivated
violence against Muslims and Jewish peoples occurred in most parts of France, while attacks
against North African immigrants were high in number in Corsica.
Prisoners and international monitors alike complain about poor conditions and overcrowding in
prisons. Lengthy pre-trial detention and protracted trial proceedings were also issues that rose to
the forefront recently.
Frequent occurrence of child abuse and trafficking in persons are also concerns to both the
government of France and the international community.
Human Development Index (HDI) Rank:
See full listing in "Social Overview" of this Country Review
Human Poverty Index Rank:
10th
Gini Index:
32.7
Life Expectancy at Birth (years):
79 years
Unemployment Rate:
10%
France Review 2016
France
Population living on $1 a day (%):
N/A
Population living on $2 a day (%):
N/A
Population living beneath the Poverty Line (%):
6.5%
Internally Displaced People:
N/A
Note-131,000 refugees are currently seeking asylum in France
Total Crime Rate (%):
21.4%
Health Expenditure (% of GDP):
Public: 7.4%
% of GDP Spent on Education:
5.6%
Human Rights Conventions Party to:
• International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide
• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
• Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
• Conventions on the Rights of the Child
• Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
France Review 2016
France
*Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite index that measures the level of well-being in
177 nations in the world. It uses factors such as poverty, literacy, life-expectancy, education, gross
domestic product, and purchasing power parity to assess the average achievements in each nation.
It has been used in the United Nation’s Human Development Report since 1993.
*Human Poverty Index Ranking is based on certain indicators used to calculate the Human
Poverty Index. Probability at birth of not surviving to age 40, adult literacy rate, population without
sustainable access to an improved water source, and population below income poverty line are the
indicators assessed in this measure.
*The Gini Index measures inequality based on the distribution of family income or consumption. A
value of 0 represents perfect equality (income being distributed equally), and a value of 100 perfect
inequality (income all going to one individual).
*The calculation of the total crime rate is the % of the total population which has been effected by
property crime, robbery, sexual assault, assault, or bribery (corruption) related occurrences.
Government Functions
Constitution
The current French constitution was adopted by referendum in 1958, replacing the constitution of
the French Fourth Republic with that of the Fifth Republic. The Fourth Republic was plagued by a
weak executive government and a fractionalized parliament, a combination which led to repeated
changes in government. Government instability and a crisis in the French colony of Algiers led to
calls for a restructuring of the French political system. The leader of the French resistance
movement during World War II, General Charles de Gaulle, was asked to serve as prime minister
with a mandate to develop a new constitution. The constitution written under de Gaulle's
leadership created a strong president with substantial authority in legislative matters. A subsequent
amendment to the constitution advocated by de Gaulle provided for the president to be directly
elected. The amendment was passed in a 1962 referendum. The constitution also retained a
parliamentary system in which a government is responsible to the legislature. The combination of a
directly elected president with significant political authority and a parliamentary form of
government created a hybrid political system referred to as a semi-presidential system.
France Review 2016
France
Note: The constitution was amended to comply with provisions of 1992 European Community
Maastricht Treaty, 1996 Amsterdam Treaty, 2000 Treaty of Nice; it was amended to tighten
immigration laws in 1993; it was amended in 2000 to change the seven-year presidential term to a
five-year term; it was amended in 2005 to make the European Union (EU) constitutional treaty
compatible with the Constitution of France and to ensure that the decision to ratify EU accession
treaties would be made by referendum
Executive Authority
The president of France is the head of state and as such, represents France in international
relations while serving as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The president is also the de
facto head of government when the prime minister is a member of the president's political party, or
coalition. When the prime minister is from a different political party than the president, a condition
known as "cohabitation," both the president and the prime minister share government authority.
Since periods of "cohabitation" have been the exception rather than the norm, French presidents
have enjoyed strong political powers for much of the history of the Fifth Republic. The French
president appoints the prime minister, who must have the confidence of parliament, and can also
dismiss a prime minister. The French president can also dissolve parliament and call early elections;
can, under certain conditions, exercise broad emergency powers; can send legislation back to
parliament for reconsideration or to the Constitutional Council for a ruling; and can bypass
parliament on important matters by calling referenda. When the president and prime minister are
from the same political party, it is the president that controls the government's agenda. The French
president is elected directly for a five-year term under an electoral system that fosters electoral
alliances, during presidential elections, between the political parties on the left and between political
parties on the right. A candidate who receives 50 percent plus one in the first ballot wins the
presidency. If no candidate passes this threshold, then a second ballot is held two weeks later
between the two candidates who received the highest number of votes, unless one or the other
chooses to withdraw.
Much executive authority is vested in a government (cabinet) headed by a prime minister. The
president appoints the prime minister; the president appoints other ministers upon the
recommendation of the prime minister. While it is not necessary for the prime minister and other
members of government to pass a formal "investiture vote" (confidence vote) before taking office,
the government can be removed by the parliament in votes of no-confidence. Thus, the president
must choose a prime minister and government that have the confidence of the majority in
parliament. When the president and prime minister are from the same political party, the president
controls the government's agenda, but the government is responsible for developing and
implementing the day-to-day policies of the state. During periods of "cohabitation," the vagueness
of the constitution has meant that the relative authority of the president and prime minister is a
matter of negotiation between the occupants of the two positions. The constitution of the Fifth
France Review 2016
France
Republic grants the government significant powers in the legislative process. The government can
propose legislation, authority it shares with parliament except on those matters that increase
spending or decrease revenue, in which case only the government can propose legislation. The
government can require the parliament to consider proposed legislation in "package votes" in which
the parliament cannot amend the proposed legislation, but rather can only vote for or against the
proposal. The government can also employ what is known as the "guillotine" in which proposed
legislation is considered approved automatically by parliament without a vote, unless the parliament
votes no-confidence against the government. A no-confidence vote by parliament may in turn lead
to the dissolution of parliament by the president. Finally, the parliament can, if it wishes, delegate
full legislative powers to the government for limited periods of time. These legislative procedures
provide the government with considerable advantages over the parliament in the legislative process.
Legislative Authority
Legislative authority is vested in a bicameral parliament, the "Assemblée Nationale" (National
Assembly), composed of a lower house, also known as the "Assemblée Nationale" and an upper
house, the "Sénat" (Senate). The members of the "Assemblée Nationale," or lower house, are
directly elected for maximum five-year terms in single member districts. Unless a candidate
receives 50 percent plus one on the first ballot, a run-off election is held in each district two weeks
after the first ballot. All candidates who obtain the support of 12.5 percent of the number of eligible
voters can participate in the run-off election. The multiparty context of French elections has led to
a practice in which political parties on the left negotiate with other parties on the left in deciding
which party's candidate will participate in the run-off election. Similarly, the political parties on the
right negotiate with other parties on the right, with the exception of the extreme right parties. The
negotiations are based on the vote percentages the parties receive on the first ballot and a complex
trade-off across all of the districts where run-off elections occur. While the "Assemblée Nationale"
does not formally elect the prime minister or government, the "Assemblée Nationale" can pass
votes of no-confidence that bring down the government. The "Assemblée Nationale" shares with
the government the authority to propose new legislation and can, in a joint motion with the
"Sénat," put matters to a referendum.
Most of the members of the "Sénat" or Senate include representatives for metropolitan France,
overseas departments, overseas territories, and French nationals abroad; members are indirectly
elected by an electoral college to serve six-year terms; one third are elected every three years).
Between 2006 and 2011, more new seats will be added to the Senate. Starting in 2008, members
will be indirectly elected by an electoral college to serve six-year terms, with one-half elected every
three years.
Judicial Authority
France Review 2016
France
Judicial authority is vested in numerous independent courts as well as a Constitutional Council and
the Council of State. The Constitutional Council rules on the constitutionality of laws referred to it
by the parliament, the government, or the president. There are nine members of the Constitutional
Council appointed for nine-year, non-renewable terms, with one-third of the membership renewed
every three years. Three of the appointed members are appointed by the president, three by the
president of the "Assemblée Nationale," and three by the president of the "Sénat." Additionally, all
former presidents of France are life members of the Constitutional Council. The Council of State
advises the government on the legal repercussions and the constitutionality of laws and also
provides individual citizens with legal redress against administrative acts by the state.
Administration
France is divided into 26 regions -- Alsace, Aquitaine, Auvergne, Basse-Normandie (Lower
Normandy), Bourgogne, Bretagne (Brittany), Centre, Champagne-Ardenne, Corse (Corsica),
Franche-Comte, Guadeloupe, Guyane (French Guiana), Haute-Normandie (Upper Normandy), Ilede-France, Languedoc-Roussillon, Limousin, Lorraine, Martinique, Midi-Pyrenees, Nord-Pas-deCalais, Pays de la Loire, Picardie, Poitou-Charentes, Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur. France is also
divided into 22 metropolitan regions (including the "territorial collectivity" of Corse or Corsica)
and four overseas regions (including French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Reunion), and is
subdivided into 96 metropolitan departments and four overseas departments, which are the same
as the overseas regions.
Supplementary sources include: The Government and Politics of France. 1971. John S. Ambler.
Houghton Mifflin Company; International Constitutional Law. 2002. URL: <http://www.uniwuerzburg.de/law/;> Politics in France, Fifth Ed. 1992. Henry W. Ehrmann and Martin A.
Schain. Harper Collins Publishers.
Government Structure
Names:
conventional long form:
French Republic
conventional short form:
France Review 2016
France
France
local long form:
Republique francaise
local short form:
France
Type:
Constitutional republic; mixed presidential-parliamentary system
Executive Branch:
Note:
The president is directly elected by absolute majority popular vote in two rounds -- if needed -- for
a five-year term (eligible for a second term); elections were last held on in April and May 2012
(next to be held in the spring of 2017); the prime minister is appointed by the president. See
"Summary" below for details related to the 2012 presidential elections.
Head of state:
President Francois Hollande (since May 2012); see "Summary" below for details. The next
presidential election was expected to be held in 2017.
Summary on 2012 Presidential Elections:
First round -- April 22, 2012; second round -- May 6, 2012 -Francois Hollande defeated incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy in the second round of the
French presidential election on May 6, 2012.
French voters went to the polls on April 22, 2012, to cast their ballots in the first round of the
country's presidential election. Socialist candidate Francois Hollande performed in line with preelection polling data and captured the plurality of the vote share with 28 percent. Incumbent
President Nicolas Sarkozy secured 26 percent. The candidates of the far right, Marine Le Pen,
and the hard left, Melachon, garnered third and fourth place finishes respectively. Centrist
candidate Bayrou took fifth place. These results pit Hollande against Sarkozy in a second round
for the presidency set to take place on May 6, 2012. Sarkozy was hoping to attract far right voters
to his fold, with an eye on holding the presidency for another term. Hollande was hoping to
consolidate the left in the second round, thus propelling him to ultimate victory.
On May 6, 2012, voter turnout was reported to be high at approximately 80 percent. The vote
count was close with Hollande taking 52 percent and Sarkozy acquiring 48 percent. Accordingly,
Hollande became the first Socialist to become president of France since François Mitterrand left
France Review 2016
France
office in 1995. On the other side of the equation, Sarkozy secured the dubious distinction of
becoming the first French president to lose a bid for re-election in more than 30 years. Indeed,
Sarkozy's defeat was something of a significant end to the ascendancy of conservative politics in
Europe in recent times.
as well as with tackling the debt crisis ongoing across Europe. President Hollande tapped fellow
Socialist and close ally, Jean-Marc Ayrault, to be the new prime minister, replacing outgoing
Francois Fillion. Jean-Marc Ayrault served as the mayor of Nantes and had extensive credentials at
the legislative level. As a German speaker, the new prime minister was expected to play a key role
in discussions between Paris and Berlin over the European treaty and the future of the euro zone.
Before taking on that goal, Prime Minister Ayrault would have the task of forming a new French
percent.
It should be noted that a parliamentary election was set to follow in France in June 2012.
Head of government:
Prime Minister Manuel Valls (since April 2014)
Note on head of government:
At the start of April 2014, following a poor performance by his Socialist Party in local elections,
French President Francois Hollande appointed a new prime minister to set the country on the path
of financial management. President Hollande selected centrist Manuel Valls to replace outgoing
Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, who resigned after the Socialists' disappointing defeat at the
local level.
For his part, incoming Prime Minister Valls heralded his new post saying, "This is a difficult but
inspiring task." He continued, "I will continue the work you have done to put right our country,
economy, industry and public finances."
While Valls was a popular figure at the national level, his centrist credentials made him a lightning
France Review 2016
France
rod of sorts for the leftist base of the president's Socialist Party. As well, his presence spurred
Hollande's Greens coalition partners to warn that they would not be able to work with Valls.
There were hopes that the inclusion of President Hollande's former partner, Segolene Royal, in the
cabinet as environment minister, might assuage the base of the Socialist Party. Other inclusions in
the new government would be Michel Sapin -- a stalwart of Hollande -- at the Ministry of
Finance, while Arnaud Montebourg -- a clear leftist -- would hold the ministerial portfolio for
industry and economy. Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius was re-confirmed in his post
with his duties expanded into the realm of international development.
Internal fighting within the leftist ranks of the French political establishment over the future
economic policy led to France's President Francois Hollande on Aug. 25, 2014, to call for a cabinet
shuffle. At issue was an emerging conflict was over the economic austerity policies driven by
Germany but affecting all euro bloc countries including France.
Specifically, French Economy Minister Arnaud Montebourg railed against the austerity agenda, and
criticized Germany for damaging regional economies with its "obsession" with the policies of
economic austerity. At a news conference at France's Ministry of Finance, he said, "The whole
world is begging us to put an end to these absurd austerity policies which are burying the euro zone
deeper and deeper in recession and which will soon end up with deflation." He continued, "We
must have the intellectual and political courage to acknowledge that austerity policies are making
deficits worse instead of narrowing them."
Montebourg stance was not a surprise since he has consistently insisted that cutting the deficit was
not the correct course for France, which was already hamstrung by stagnant growth and high
unemployment. Nevertheless, Montebourg's impassioned attack made it clear that he was not
interested in a role in a future cabinet, should the president seek to perpetuate its existing economic
reform agenda. Montebourg also indicated that other leftists in government, such as Education
Minister Benoit Hamon and Vulture Minister Aurelie Filipetti were also resigning from the cabinet.
Despite the resonance Montebourg's admonishments held with the leftist base of the French
electorate, and seemingly irrespective of the fact that he was sporting the worst approval ratings of
any French president in recent memory, President Hollande said he would ask Prime Minister
Manuel Valls to move forward with changes to the cabinet. That new cabinet, according to the
president, should adhere to his pro-business economic reform agenda. A statement by the office of
the prime minister read as follows: "The head of state asked Prime Minister Manuel Valls to form a
team that supports the objectives he has set out for the country."
By September 2014, President Hollande's new cabinet was being subject to scrunity from dissident
Socialists who said they might abstain from a forthcoming confidence vote. That vote, set for
Sept. 16, 2014, was intended to ratify the new government. However, the anti-austerity and rebel
wings of the party could be the very faction that might cause the confidence vote to fail, essentially
France Review 2016
France
forcing the dissolution of the parliament and setting the path for snap elections. Despite Hollande's
unpopularity, the Socialist establishment was hoping that there were enough stalwarts available to
pass the confidence vote and save Prime Minister Vall's government.
Cabinet:
Council of Ministers; formally appointed by the president, based on the nominations of the prime
minister
Legislative Branch:
Bicameral "Parlement" (Parliament):
Consists of the "Sénat" (Senate) and the "Assemblée Nationale" (National Assembly)
"Sénat" (Senate):
348 seats, 326 for metropolitan France and overseas departments, 2 for New Caledonia, 2 for
Mayotte, 1 for Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, 1 for Saint-Barthelemy, 1 for Saint-Martin, 3 for
overseas territories, and 12 for French nationals abroad; starting in 2008, members will be
indirectly elected by an electoral college to serve six-year terms, with one-half elected every three
years
2011 Senate Elections:
Last held September 25, 2011
2011 Election results:
The result showed a historic victory for France's left-wing opposition, which won the majority of
seats in the Senate for the first time in recent history. Indeed, the Socialist Party, along with its
Communist and Green allies, secured a total of 177 seats, and control over the in the upper
chamber of parliament for the first time since the birth of the Fifth Republic in 1958. See
"Political Conditions" for details.
"Assemblée Nationale" (National Assembly):
577 seats, 555 for metropolitan France, 15 for overseas departments, 7 for dependencies;
members are elected by popular vote under a single-member majority system to serve five-year
terms
2012 Parliamentary Elections:
First round -- June 10, 2012; second round -- June 17, 2012 -2012 Elections results:
On June 10, 2012, French voters went to the polls to cast their ballots in the first round of the
parliamentary elections. Results after the first round showed that President Hollande's Socialists
France Review 2016
France
and their Green allies were positioned for a majority with around 46 percent of the vote
share. The center-right Union for a Popular Movement and its electoral partners secured about 34
percent. Le Pen's far right National Front garnered almost 14 percent of votes -- well exceeding
the four percent won in the 2007 elections. The Communist-backed Left Front saw a respectable
overall result having won close to seven percent of the vote share.
Of course, given France's "first past the post" electoral structure, how those margins would
translate into actual seats was yet to be seen. While 46 percent by the Socialists and Greens was
just short of a majority, it was possible that with the support of the Left Front, the left wing parties
could have control over parliament. Indeed, the various left wing parties, led by the Socialists,
appeared to have done an effective job of placing pressure on their supporters to cast their ballots
en masse for the left in the parliamentary elections, in much the same way as they stood unified in
the presidential race.
On June 17, 2012, French voters returned to the polls to cast their ballots in the second round of
the parliamentary elections. With the votes counted, as expected, the Socialist Party of France and
its allies won enough parliamentary seats to form an absolute majority. A preliminary vote count
showed that the Socialists had won between 296 and 320 seats -- more than the 289 needed to
claim a majority in the 577-seat National Assembly; the center-right Union for a Popular
Movement garnered between 221 and 231 seats; the Soclalist-alloed Greens had won 20 seats; the
communist-allied Left Front had 10 seats; and the the far-right National Front took between one
and four seats. National Front leader, Le Pen, would not be among those taking a seat in the new
parliament since she lost her election bid to her Socialist rival, Philipe Kemel.
This result meant that the Socialists could command control over the parliament without having to
rely on support from either the Greens or the far-left. With the Senate already in the Socialist
column, this result also ensured that President Hollande would have the parliamentary support
needed to advance his economic growth agenda, which has included increased taxation for the
country's richest citizens and increased public spending. See "Political Conditions" for details.
Judicial Branch:
"Cour de Cassation" (Supreme Court of Appeals), president appoints judges based on nominations
from the High Council of the Judiciary
"Conseil Constitutionnel" (Constitutional Council); president of the republic, president of the
National Assembly, and president of the Senate each appoint three members; reviews the
constitutionality of legislation referred to it by the parliament, the prime minister, or the president;
can consider legislation prior to promulgation
"Conseil d'Etat" (Council of State); offers recourse to individual citizens with claims against the
France Review 2016
France
administration.
Constitution:
Sept. 28, 1958; amended concerning election of president in 1962; amended to comply with
provisions of 1992 EC Maastricht Treaty, 1996 Amsterdam Treaty, 2000 Treaty of Nice; amended
to tighten immigration laws in 1993; amended in 2000 to change the seven-year presidential term to
a five-year term; amended in 2005 to make the EU constitutional treaty compatible with the
Constitution of France and to ensure that the decision to ratify EU accession treaties would be
made by referendum
Legal System:
Civil law system with indigenous concepts; review of administrative but not legislative acts
Administrative Divisions:
27 regions (regions, singular - region); Alsace, Aquitaine, Auvergne, Basse-Normandie (Lower
Normandy), Bourgogne (Burgundy), Bretagne (Brittany), Centre, Champagne-Ardenne, Corse
(Corsica), Franche-Comte, Guadeloupe, Guyane (French Guiana), Haute-Normandie (Upper
Normandy), Ile-de-France, Languedoc-Roussillon, Limousin, Lorraine, Martinique, Mayotte, MidiPyrenees, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Pays de la Loire, Picardie, Poitou-Charentes, Provence-Alpes-Cote
d'Azur, Reunion, Rhone-Alpes
France is divided into 22 metropolitan regions (including the "territorial collectivity" of Corse or
Corsica) and 4 overseas regions and is subdivided into 96 metropolitan departments and 4 overseas
departments
Overseas departments: French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Reunion
Overseas territorial collectivities: Mayotte, Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Dependent Areas: Bassas da India, Clipperton Island, Europa Island, French Polynesia, French
Southern and Antarctic Lands, Glorioso Islands, Juan de Nova Island, New Caledonia, Tromelin
Island, Wallis and Futuna
Political Parties:
Europe Ecology - The Greens or EELV [Emmanuelle COSSE]
French Communist Party or PCF [Pierre LAURENT]
Left Front Coalition or FDG [Jean-Luc MELENCHON]
France Review 2016
France
Left Party or PG [Jean-Luc MELENCHON and Martine BILLARD]
Left Radical Party or PRG [Jean-Michel BAYLET] (previously Radical Socialist Party or PRS and
the Left Radical Movement or MRG)
Movement for France or MPF [Philippe DE VILLIERS]
National Front or FN [Marine LE PEN]
New Anticapitalist Party or NPA [collective leadership; main spokesperson Christine POUPIN]
New Center or NC [Herve MORIN]
Radical Party [Jean-Louis BORLOO]
Rally for France or RPF [Charles PASQUA]
Republican and Citizen Movement or MRC [Jean-Luc LAURENT]
Socialist Party or PS [Haerlem DESIR]
The Republicans (formerly Union for a Popular Movement or UMP) [Nicolas SARKOZY]
Union des Democrates et Independants or UDI [Jean-Louis BORLOO] and Democratic
Movement or MoDem [Francois BAYROU] (previously Union for French Democracy or UDF);
together known as UDI-Modem
United Republic or RS [Dominique DE VILLEPIN]
Worker's Struggle (Lutte Ouvriere) or LO [collective leadership; spokespersons Nathalie
ARTHAUD and Arlette LAQUILLER]
Note:
Political parties, their leaders, as well as cabinet lists, are subject to sudden changes. The listings
offered come from published government sources and reflect the published government data
available at the time of writing.
Suffrage:
18 years of age; universal
Principal Government Officials
Government of France
Pres.
Francois HOLLANDE
France Review 2016
France
Prime Min.
Manuel VALLS
Min. of Agriculture, Agribusiness, & Forestry & Govt. Spokesperson
Stephane LE FOLL
Min. of Culture & Communication
Fleur PELLERIN
Min. of Decentralization & Civil Service
Marylise LEBRANCHU
Min. of Defense
Jean-Yves LE DRIAN
Min. of Ecology, Sustainable Development, & Energy
Segolene ROYAL
Min. of Economy, Industry, & the Digital Economy
Emmanuel MACRON
Min. of Finance & Public Accounts
Michel SAPIN
Min. of Foreign Affairs & Intl. Development
Laurent FABIUS
Min. of Housing & Territorial Equities
Sylvia PINEL
Min. of the Interior
Bernard CAZENEUVE
Min. of Justice & Keeper of the Seals
Christiane TAUBIRA
Min. of Labor, Employment, Professional Training, & Social Dialogue
Myriam EL KHOMRI
Min. of National Education, Higher Education, & Research
Najat VALLAUD-BELKACEM
Min. of Overseas France
George PAU-LANGEVIN
Min. of Social Affairs, Health, & Women's Rights
Marisol TOURAINE
Min. of Urban Areas, Youth, & Sports
Patrick KANNER
Governor, Bank of France
Francois VILLEROY DE GALHAU
Ambassador to the US
Gerard ARAUD
Permanent Representative to the UN, New York
Francois DELATTRE
France Review 2016
France
-- as of 2016
Leader Biography
Leader Biography
President of France
Summary --
Francois Hollande defeated incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy in the second round of the
French presidential election on May 6, 2012.
French voters went to the polls on April 22, 2012, to cast their ballots in the first round of the
country's presidential election. Socialist candidate Francois Hollande performed in line with preelection polling data and captured the plurality of the vote share with 28 percent. Incumbent
President Nicolas Sarkozy secured 26 percent. The candidates of the far right, Marine Le Pen,
and the hard left, Melachon, garnered third and fourth place finishes respectively. Centrist
candidate Bayrou took fifth place. These results pit Hollande against Sarkozy in a second round
for the presidency set to take place on May 6, 2012. Sarkozy was hoping to attract far right voters
to his fold, with an eye on holding the presidency for another term. Hollande was hoping to
consolidate the left in the second round, thus propelling him to ultimate victory.
On May 6, 2012, voter turnout was reported to be high at approximately 80 percent. The vote
count was close with Hollande taking 52 percent and Sarkozy acquiring 48 percent. Accordingly,
Hollande became the first Socialist to become president of France since François Mitterrand left
office in 1995. On the other side of the equation, Sarkozy secured the dubious distinction of
France Review 2016
France
becoming the first French president to lose a bid for re-election in more than 30 years. Indeed,
Sarkozy's defeat was something of a significant end to the ascendancy of conservative politics in
Europe in recent times.
as well as with tackling the debt crisis ongoing across Europe. President Hollande tapped fellow
Socialist and close ally, Jean-Marc Ayrault, to be the new prime minister, replacing outgoing
Francois Fillion. Jean-Marc Ayrault served as the mayor of Nantes and had extensive credentials at
the legislative level. As a German speaker, the new prime minister was expected to play a key role
in discussions between Paris and Berlin over the European treaty and the future of the euro zone.
Before taking on that goal, Prime Minister Ayrault would have the task of forming a new French
percent.
***
A biography for President Francois Hollande is provided following, courtesy of the CountryWatch
News Wire --
Profile: French president-elect Francois Hollande
France Review 2016
France
PARIS, May 6 (Xinhua) -- French Socialist Party leader Francois
Hollande defeated incumbent French President Nicolas Sarkozy in
Sunday's decisive presidential runoff as most previous opinion
polls had predicted.
Hollande will be the second left-wing president of the French
Fifth Republic, which saw Francois Mitterrand, founder of the
French Socialist Party (PS), served two seven-year terms as
president from 1981.
The president-elect, born on August 12, 1954 in northern France,
has a shining education background with diplomas of Ecole des
Hautes Etudes Commerciales de Paris (HEC), Institut d'Etudes
Politiques de Paris (Sciences Po) and Ecole nationale
d'administration (ENA), all elite universities in France.
He served as the first secretary of the PS from 1997 to 2008,
and was mayor of Tulle in central France from 2001 to 2008, as well
as a member of parliament for the southwestern department of
Correze.
However, Hollande has never held a government post at national
level, which bothered some French voters and cast doubts over his
ability to lead the country out of economic crisis.
Bespectacled and with a scholarly air, Hollande has successfully
portrayed himself as a "normal president" as opposed to hyperactive
Sarkozy, taking advantage of public's disappointment with the
incumbent president.
France Review 2016
France
In his campaign for president, Hollande pledged to fight record
high unemployment, including hiring 60,000 more teachers in his
term in addition to 150,000 state-aided jobs.
Hollande opposed a financial policy solely based on austerity,
and planned to open negotiations on the European fiscal pact
reached last December by adding new clauses focusing on economic
growth and job creation.
He pledged to reach zero budget gap in 2017 and urged the
establishment of a European rating agency.
The Socialist also proposed a 75-percent tax rate on those who
earn over 1 million euros (1.3 million U.S. dollars) a year, and an
increase on the minimum wage.
On foreign policy, Hollande said he would pull out French combat
troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year, and would only
intervene in foreign countries under the United Nation's mandate in
the future.
Though criticized by his opponents as moderate and indecisive,
Hollande had the honor of being praised by former conservative
President Jacques Chirac as a "true statesman."
After beating Sarkozy in the first round of the 2012 French
presidential election with more than 28.6 percent of the vote, he
took people by surprise in the only TV debate against the incumbent
for being unusually argumentative and aggressive, revealing more
strength and potential than just being "quiet" and "unflappable."
France Review 2016
France
Though far-right leader Marine Le Pen said she would endorse
neither candidate, Hollande received endorsement from centrist
party leader Francois Bayrou, who came fifth in the first round
polling.
Hollande has four children with Segolene Royal, who failed to
challenge Sarkozy in 2007 election. His life companion now is
Valerie Trierweiler,* 47, a French journalist.
* Note that the French president ended his relationship with Trierweiler in 2014.
Foreign Relations
General Relations
France is a member of numerous international organizations including the United Nations (UN) and
many of its specialized and regional agencies. Indeed, France plays an influential global role as a
charter member of the United Nations and a permanent member of the United Nations Security
Council.
France is also a member of the European Union (EU), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe,
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the
World Trade Organization (WTO), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), the G-8 and la Francophonie.
Note on the European Union: The French took over the rotating EU presidency for JulyDecember 2008, with a focus on immigration, energy, the environment, and European defense
during their term.
France Review 2016
France
Note on NATO: In 2008, France said that it would decide whether or not to return to NATO
military command (it left in protest decades earlier over domination by United States
commanders), and also confirmed extra troops deployments to Afghanistan. In 2009, France said
it would rejoin the NATO command and France played host to the NATO summit. See section on
NATO in "Regional Relations" below for more details.
Regional Relations
Editor's Summary of the European Union:
The European Community's original member states were Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg,
France, Italy and West Germany. Then, in 1973, United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland joined
the grouping. In the 1980s, Greece, Spain and Portugal joined in the 1980s. The European Union
was officially established in 1993 under the Maastricht Treaty. Two years later, Austria, Sweden
and Finland joined the European bloc. In 2002, the euro was introduced in 12 member states;
since then, the euro zone expanded to include 16 countries. In 2004, the new entrants to the EU
were the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia
and Slovenia. Bulgaria and Romania joined in 2007. To date, entry talks have been ongoing for
Croatia, accession talks have been ongoing for Turkey, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia has submitted a request to join.
Meanwhile, in 2005, the EU moved in the direction of official endorsement of the body's
constitution. Ratification votes against that draft document in various countries (France and
Netherlands) placed it in doubt. A new Reform Treaty emerged in 2007, which was later known
as the Lisbon Treaty because it was signed in the Portuguese capital. It was intended to be the
new operational foundation of European Union. Indeed, the Lisbon Treaty contains provisions for
dealing with the European body's expansion into the eastern part of the continent and was intended
to replace the European constitution. It also created two new posts -- a permanent European
Union President and a foreign policy chief -- for the purpose of augmenting the influence of the
regional bloc on the international stage.
Supporters see the Lisbon Treaty as fundamental to the European Union's success, explaining that
without it, the body's processes would remain cumbersome. For example, contained within it is a
provision for more decisions to be made by majority vote instead of unanimity. But detractors
have argued that the Lisbon Treaty is part of a federalist agenda and that it is threatening to the
sovereignty of nation states.
The Lisbon Treaty was originally scheduled to become effective at the start of 2009; however, its
fate was placed in doubt in 2008 when Irish voters decisively rejected the accord. Irish ratification
France Review 2016
France
in 2009 finally took place and revitalized the process. Problems with the ratification process in
Poland, and legal challenges in the Czech Republic, led to the renewed risk of collapse.
Ultimately, the Lisbon Treaty could not be have been implemented unless it was approved by all
27 EU states. With that prerequisite fulfilled, the stage was set for the treaty to go into force before
Jan. 1, 2010. To that end, a signing ceremony took place in the city of Lisbon on Dec. 1, 2009.
Relations with the European Union (EU)
France was one of the six founding members of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)
in 1951 and continued to play a key role in European integration as the ECSC evolved into the
European Communities (EC). The most important of the three communities in the EC was the
European Economic Community (EEC) which created a common market that abolished tariffs
between the member-states. The EC has experienced several episodes of major institutional
developments since the Treaty of Paris establishing the ECSC in 1951 including:
- the introduction of direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979
- the Single Europe Act of 1986 - which sought to create a single market in goods and services
- the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 - which renamed the EC to the European Union (EU), altered
relations between the EU's legislative institutions, set a timeline for the adoption of a single EUwide currency, and established the criteria that the member-states had to meet in order to join the
single currency
- the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 - which further altered relations between the EU's institutions
- the launch of the single currency, the euro, in 1999
- proposals for the development of common foreign and security policies (CFSP) within the EU
In May 1998, the European Council defined the list of countries participating in the Economic and
Monetary Union (EMU): Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain. Greece became a participating member in 2001. The euro
was launched on Jan. 1, 1999; conversion rates of all EMU member states' currencies to the euro
were irrevocably fixed. As of Jan. 1, 2002, euro banknotes and coins became legal tender in
France; the French franc ceased to be a legal tender in February 2002.
France is also a signatory to the Schengen Agreement concerning the free movement of people
across the borders of EU member states. From 1990 to May 1999, Schengen was an
intergovernmental agreement among signatories and was not European Union law. When the
France Review 2016
France
Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force on May 1, 1999, the agreement was supposed to become
part of EU law; however, various implementation problems are currently being addressed. Not all
EU members are signatories to the Schengen agreement. The United Kingdom and Ireland are not
participants in any part of the accord. Denmark, Finland, and Sweden have signed but are not full
members. Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Portugal, and Spain are full members. This is supposed to mean the complete removal of internal
air, land, and sea border controls between the members and cooperation among their respective
police forces in criminal matters.
The Treaty of Amsterdam was signed on Oct. 2, 1997; it became effective on May 1, 1999. The
treaty makes significant changes to the way in which the "three pillars" of the European Union will
be dealt with in the future. These "three pillars" are first, the single common market; second,
common foreign and security policy; and third, justice and home affairs.
The treaty extends the co-decision procedure (in which the European Parliament wields significant
amendment and veto powers) to 38 policy areas, that is, most of the policy areas concerning the
promotion of the European common market, and therefore, most areas of European Union
legislation. It also grants the European Parliament the power to approve or disapprove the choice
(made by member governments) of European Commission president. (The new president, Romano
Prodi, was approved under this procedure). For the Council of Ministers, the treaty extends the
areas in which qualified majority voting (QMV) applies. This makes it less likely for single
countries to veto policy proposals. The treaty also moves certain policy areas of the "third pillar" of
justice and home affairs, which previously have been decided by intergovernmental bargaining
without influence from the Commission or the European Parliament, to the "first pillar" of single
market issues. This change should increase the policy-making influence of the Commission and the
Parliament. The Schengen accord falls into this category. Finally, the treaty calls for the creation of
a "High Representative" for common foreign and security policy. Javier Solana, former secretarygeneral of NATO, has been appointed as the first high representative. To date, this "second pillar"
has been a matter of intergovernmental bargaining, though with QMV. The belief is that the EU will
have greater international influence if it is able to speak with one voice on matters of foreign policy.
With regard to an European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI), in December 1998, French
President Jacques Chirac and British Prime Minister Tony Blair issued what became known as the
"St. Malo Declaration," stating that the European Union should have the capability to act
autonomously in security matters. This has long been a stated objective by various European
leaders and has given rise to various failed attempts at security/defense cooperation. Examples
include the European Defense Community (done away with at the draft stage) and the less
ambitious Western European Union (which includes some NATO and non-NATO members and
some EU and non-EU members).
The problems have been the lack of a common foreign policy (without which a common security
France Review 2016
France
policy is not possible); the so-called "special relationship" between the United States and the United
Kingdom; and the lack of consolidation in the European defense industry. That Prime Minister
Blair advocated a common security arrangement within the EU was seen as a major breakthrough.
Other NATO members subsequently supported this at the April 1999 50th anniversary summit
(including, most importantly, the U.S. and hesitantly, Turkey).
At the June 1999 EU Summit in Cologne, Germany, EU leaders agreed on a common
defense/security program. At the summit, it was agreed that the WEU would be incorporated into
the EU by the end of 2000. In November 1999, former NATO secretary-general and current head
of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) agency of the EU, Javier Solana, was
appointed head of the WEU. Also in November 1999, French President Jacques Chirac and British
Prime Minister Tony Blair called for the creation of a European rapid deployment force under the
auspices of the WEU. It has been suggested that the new WEU will be able to use NATO
equipment without necessarily having other NATO members involved, though other NATO
members would be consulted. Problems could arise, however, because of non-overlapping
memberships (see listing below). Nevertheless, the Implementation of the St. Petersberg Tasks
provide the practical measures for dealing with the complex geometry of these relationships.
***
Joint Members in the EU, WEU, and NATO:
Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, UK
EU and NATO Member and WEU Observer:
Denmark
EU Members and WEU Observers:
Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden
NATO Members and WEU Associate Members:
Iceland, Norway, Turkey
New NATO Members (as of March 12, 1999) and WEU Associate Members:
Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland
France Review 2016
France
WEU Associate Partners:
Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia
***
Notes on the EU:
In late 2000, the EU agreed to create a "rapid reaction force" consisting of approximately 60,000
troops to be deployed on humanitarian missions, peacekeeping missions, and in crisis situations,
more generally. Serious concerns remain on the part of EU member states and non-EU members
of NATO (particularly, the United States and Turkey) about the nature and command of this force
- and its compatibility with NATO. At the December 2001 Laeken Summit, the EU governments
declared the proposed rapid reaction force, which eventually will number 60,000 troops, to be
operational.
Throughout 2000, the member states of the EU were engaged in an intergovernmental conference
(IGC) tasked with designing a new treaty that prepares the EU for eventual enlargement that will
nearly double the number of member countries in the EU. Enlargement will initially include
Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia. Six more countries are
expected to follow; they are: Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Slovakia. Turkey has
also been asked to begin negotiations for future accession to the EU. The larger membership
necessarily requires changes in the EU institutions, which were designed for a far smaller number
of member states.
In particular, the IGC was focused on three primary institutional decisions. The first issue was how
to limit the size of the European Commission, the EU's executive branch, and how to distribute the
commission's positions among the member states. Currently, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and
the United Kingdom obtain two commission positions each while the other 10 countries each
receive one commission position. The second institutional issue concerned reformulating the voting
procedure in the Council of Ministers, the EU legislature responsible for representing the member
states' governments, to better reflect the population size of the member states. Currently, the
smaller states are favored in the Council of Ministers' system of weighted votes. The third issue
was altering the treaties to allow for more majority voting, based on weighted votes, in the Council
of Ministers. Enlargement will make it more difficult to pass legislation in those issue areas that
currently require unanimity in the Council of Ministers by granting even more countries the ability
to single-handedly stop changes in EU policy. Treaty changes, which would allow for majority
voting in some of these areas, would significantly facilitate the EU's legislative process.
The IGC concluded at a summit in Nice, France with France holding the six-month rotating
presidency of the Council of the European Union. While French president Chirac claimed success,
France Review 2016
France
many analysts noted that the IGC was the longest and one of the most contentious summits in the
EU's history with much of the controversy surrounding the re-weighting of votes in the Council of
Ministers. The so-called Franco-German axis was threatened by the French refusal to give up
voting power parity with Germany, even though Germany has a substantially larger population and
economy. Additionally, large states were pitted against small states as the larger states sought to
have the weight of votes more accurately reflect the population size of the member-states. In the
end, an even more complicated weighting of votes was devised which increased the voting power
of the larger states relative to that of the smaller states. In addition to re-weighting, the new rules
for calculating a qualified majority, which will go into effect after enlargement, contain two new
elements: a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers, according to vote weights, must also
represent at least one-half of the member-states and 62 percent of the EU total population.
The other two institutional questions addressed at the Nice summit concerned the size of the
European Commission and increasing the number of policy areas where qualified majority voting in
the Council is applied. On the first question, the large states, which currently have two members in
the Commission, agreed to give up their second member by 2005. Also, agreement was reached to
limit the total size of the Commission to 27 members after enlargement. On the second question,
qualified majority was extended to 39 new policy areas, which means that the vast majority of
policy made at the European level is now covered by the qualified majority rule in the Council of
Ministers, though countries retain vetoes over certain sensitive issue areas. In addition to agreeing
to some institutional reforms, the participants at Nice signed a Charter of Fundamental Rights,
which codifies a number of civil, political, and social rights for EU citizens. However, the leaders
of the 15 member-states did not include the Charter in the Nice Treaty, thereby weakening the
Charter's legal force.
Another pivotal summit was held in Laeken, Belgium, in December 2001 during the Belgian EU
presidency. The principal outcome of the "Laeken declaration" was an agreement to establish a
105-member convention with the responsibility to assess problems with the EU's political structure
and to propose possible changes. Many have likened the proposed convention to a constitutional
convention with a responsibility to consolidate the existing treaties that form the basis of the EU
into a single document with constitutional force. Valery Giscard D'Estaing, a former French
president, was chosen to preside over the "constitutional" convention.
EU enlargement ensued in 2004, bringing the total number of member states to 25. EU
parliamentary elections also took place that year. Further enlargement ensued in 2007 to bring the
member states to 27, with accession talks in the pipeline for other countries.
Meanwhile, in 2005, the EU moved in the direction of official endorsement of the body's
constitution. Ratification votes against that draft document in various countries (France and
Netherlands) have since placed it in doubt. A new Reform Treaty emerged in 2007, as discussed
above, which was later known as the Lisbon Treaty because it was signed in the Portuguese
France Review 2016
France
capital. It was aimed at operating as the operational foundation of European Union. The Lisbon
Treaty's fate was placed in doubt in 2008 when Irish voters decisively rejected the accord. Irish
ratification in 2009 finally took place and revitalized the process. Problems with the ratification
process in Poland, and legal challenges in the Czech Republic, led to the renewed risk of collapse.
That being said, once support from all member states was finalized, the Lisbon Treaty -- the
foundation of the new decision-making process of the European Union -- went into force on Dec.
1, 2009. The signing ceremony took place in the city of Lisbon where the treaty was originally
signed two years earlier. Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, said:
"The Treaty of Lisbon puts citizens at the center of the European project." He continued, "I'm
delighted that we now have the right institutions to act and a period of stability, so that we can
focus all our energy on delivering what matters to our citizens." Earlier, Belgian Prime Minister
Herman Van Rompuy and British Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton were chosen for the
newly-established positions of permanent European Union president and foreign policy chief
respectively.
As noted above, France assumed the presidency of the EU in July 2008 for a six-month stint.
NOTE: The stability of the euro zone and the European Union has become a major concern in
recent years, largely emanating from the Greek debt crisis, but extending regionally. Indeed, in late
2011, there were calls for serious changes to Europe’s governing treaties, aimed at ameliorated
economic governance for the 17 countries that make up the euro currency bloc. Included in their
proposal were: (1) the creation of a monetary fund for Europe, (2) automatic penalties for
countries that exceed European deficit limits, and (3) monthly meetings of European leaders.
Meanwhile, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which was intended to replace the
European Financial Stability Facility in 2013 (an entity intended as a rescue mechanism for
struggling European economies), would be advanced earlier in 2012. Ideally, the new treaty would
be ratified by all 27 member states of the European Union. However, if concurrence at that level
proved impossible, then the 17 states of the euro zone would have to approve it. Please see the
"Political Conditions" and the "Economic Conditions" of this Country Review for more details
related to these developments.
***
Note on NATO:
In 2008, France said that it would decide whether or not to return to NATO military command (it
left in protest decades earlier over domination by United States commanders), and also confirmed
extra troops deployments to Afghanistan.
France Review 2016
France
In 2009, French President Nicolas Sarkozy formally submitted a request to rejoin the NATO
command structure. President Sarkozy said he wanted France to fully participate in the alliance’s
military strategic and policy-making endeavors.
This move came after France’s 43-year absence from the security alliance. In 1966, then-President
Charles de Gaulle withdrew France from the NATO command and forced all allied troops and
bases to leave France in a bid to reassert sovereignty over French terrain. While France remained a
member of NATO, it was no longer involved in the decision-making of the alliance.
This decision has been regarded as a source of friction between Paris and Washington since it
occurred at the height of the Cold War. While bilateral relations have nonetheless remained in tact,
France’s decision to stay out of the United States-led invasion of Iraq stirred tensions in 2003.
Since taking office in 2007, President Sarkozy has sought to strengthen ties with the United States.
Warm relations with United States President Barack Obama have augmented Sarkozy’s efforts in
this regard.
But Sarkozy was faced with opposition at varied elements at home; activists on the left and right
ends of the political spectrum have argued that the move could undermine France’s ability to
function autonomously in matters related to international relations. Thus, with the intent to ratify
Sarkozy’s decision, French Prime Minister organized a confidence motion in parliament, which
passed handily.
In April 2009, leaders of NATO member states met in the French city of Strasbourg amidst fierce -and sometimes violent --protests. The NATO meeting was being jointly hosted by the German city
of Kehl although it was France that garnered more attention, Indeed, the meeting marked the 60th
anniversary of the security alliance in addition to France’s return to NATO’s command structure,
as discussed above.
Note: Despite an absence from the NATO command structure since 1966, French troops have
been participating in significant NATO missions, such as Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. As well,
France is one of the top five contributors to NATO’s military operations and the fourth most
generous contributor to the budget for NATO operations.
Note that France was one of the NATO leaders functioning in the effort to assist pro-democracy
efforts against the Qadhafi regime in Libya.
Other Significant Relations
France supports Quartet (U.S.-EU-Russia-UN) efforts to implement the Middle East roadmap,
which envisions establishment of a Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace and security with
Israel. Recognizing the need for a comprehensive peace agreement, France supports the
France Review 2016
France
involvement of all Arab parties and Israel in a multilateral peace process.
Since 2003, France has supported four UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions on Iraq, including
UNSCR 1546, which laid out a timetable for Iraq's political transition and reaffirmed UNSC
authorization for a Multinational Force in Iraq, at the invitation of the Iraqi government, to stabilize
the country. France contributed to the $315 million EU contribution to Iraq reconstruction in 2003.
After the Iraqi Interim Government took power, France agreed to substantial debt relief and
offered police training to Iraqi security forces. Since 2006, France has actively and repeatedly
publicly stressed the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran and worked with the U.S. and other members
of the P5+1 group (China, Russia, the U.K., the U.S., and Germany) to demand that Iran end its
enrichment-related and preprocessing activities.
France continues to play an important role in Africa, especially in its former colonies, through aid
programs, commercial activities, military agreements, and cultural impact. The Sarkozy
government announced a change in its sub-Saharan African policy shortly after it came to power,
intending to modernize and rationalize relations in a future-oriented manner. The French military
presence is likely to diminish, with an emphasis on cooperating with Africa's sub-regional
organizations such as Southern African Development Community (SADC), Economic Community
of West African States (ECOWAS), and Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD).
France's military bases in Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, and Senegal, and its long-term military
presence in Chad may therefore be reduced in size, consolidated, or eliminated in the years ahead.
Nonetheless, France is likely to continue to play an important role in promoting stability in the
region. For example, French support to the Government of Chad was crucial in 2008 to fending off
a rebel attack, and in 2007, France played a leading role in the EU's formation of a peacekeeping
mission in Chad and the Central African Republic designed to complement international efforts in
Sudan and Darfur.
France has extensive political and commercial relations with Asian countries, including China,
Japan, and Southeast Asia as well as an increasing presence in regional fora. France is seeking to
broaden its commercial presence in China and will pose a competitive challenge to U.S. business,
particularly in aerospace, high-tech, and luxury markets. In Southeast Asia, France was an architect
of the 1991 Paris Accords, which ended the conflict in Cambodia.
Relations With the United States
Relations between the United States and France are active and friendly. Mutual visits by high-level
officials are conducted frequently. Bilateral contact at the cabinet level has traditionally been active.
France and the United States share common values and have parallel policies on most political,
economic, and security issues. Differences are discussed frankly and have not generally been
allowed to impair the pattern of close cooperation that characterizes relations between the two
France Review 2016
France
countries.
France is one of NATO's top five troop contributors. The French support NATO modernization
efforts and are leading contributors to the NATO Response Force (NRF). France is keen to build
European defense capabilities, including through the development of EU battle-group sized force
packages and joint European military production initiatives. President Sarkozy supports
development of a European defense that complements and reinforces NATO, which remains at the
core of transatlantic security. During his December 2007 visit to Kabul, the President underscored
French commitment to complete NATO's mission in Afghanistan, where some 2,200 French troops
serve. In June 2008 Paris hosted the successful Afghanistan Support Conference, where
international donors pledged a total of $21 billion to help develop Afghan infrastructure and to
combat drugs, violence, and poverty.
France is a close partner with the U.S. in the war on terror. It cooperates with the U.S. to monitor
and disrupt terrorist groups and has processed numerous U.S. requests for information under the
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. French intelligence and security officials continue to actively
investigate and prosecute cases of extremism. The French judiciary in December 2007 tried and
convicted five French former Guantanamo detainees on terrorism charges. France is a strong
partner in multiple non-proliferation fora and is a key participant in the Proliferation Security
Initiative. As one of the P5+1 powers and as a leader of the EU, France is working to prevent Iran
from developing nuclear weapons.
France opposed the use of force in Iraq in March 2003 and did not join the U.S.-led coalition that
liberated the country from the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein. Despite differences over Iraq,
the U.S. and France continue to cooperate closely on many issues, most notably the global war on
terrorism, efforts to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and on
regional problems, including in Africa, Lebanon, and Kosovo. On Iraq, the French agreed to
generous debt relief for Iraq in Paris Club negotiations and have accepted the establishment of a
NATO training mission there.
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, France fully supports U.S. engagement in the peace process.
France is working to contain the Hamas-led challenge to the Palestinian Authority. President
Sarkozy has repeatedly emphasized his admiration of Israel and support for its security balanced
with calls for Israel's full respect of commitments under the Middle East roadmap with respect to
settlements and restrictions on Palestinian movement within the occupied territories. France hosted
a donors conference for Palestinians in December 2007.
The U.S. and France have worked closely to support a sovereign and independent Lebanon, free
of Syrian domination. The U.S. and France co-sponsored in September 2004 UNSCR 1559, which
called for full withdrawal of Syrian forces, a free and fair electoral process, and disbanding and
disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. In the wake of the assassination of former
Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in February 2005, the U.S. and France reiterated calls for a
France Review 2016
France
full, immediate withdrawal of all Syrian troops and security services from Lebanon. France also
co-sponsored UNSCR 1701 and was one of the leading countries in Europe working to end
hostilities between Israel and Hizballah in 2006 by committing 2,000 troops to UNIFIL-plus.
Strong French backing led to adoption of UNSCR 1757 establishing a Special Tribunal for
Lebanon to prosecute the perpetrators of the Hariri assassination and other killings of critics of
Syria's interference in Lebanon. French efforts in Lebanon are focused on maintaining stability and
promoting national reconciliation consistent with relevant UNSCRs. President Sarkozy's decision to
pursue a rapprochement with Syria following the Doha accord to end fighting in Lebanon in 2008
is also reportedly contingent upon good faith Syrian efforts to normalize relations with Lebanon.
France also participates in the U.S. Broader Middle East and North Africa initiative.
Trade and investment between the U.S. and France are strong. On average, over $1 billion in
commercial transactions take place between France and the U.S. every day, with the U.S. being
one of France's tops suppliers and customers.
Since 2009, bilateral ties appeared to have been strengthened by the election of Barack Obama as
the president of the United States. Obama, as a candidate for the presidency, was reported to have
forged a strong friendship with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. At the G-20 meetings in
London, Obama played peacemaker between Sarkozy and the Chinese Premier Hu Jintao in order
to broker an agreement dealing with tax havens.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the concurrence reached at the G-20 summit were
"more than we could have hoped for." President Sarkozy also credited President Obama for the
American president’s leadership at the summit, effusively stating: "President Obama really found
the consensus. He didn't focus exclusively on stimulus ... In fact it was he who managed to help
me persuade [Chinese] President Hu Jintao to agree to the reference to the ... publication of a list
of tax havens, and I wish to thank him for that."
At the NATO meetings in France following the G-20 summit, United States President Barack
Obama emphasized the need to repairing his country’s ties with Europe in the wake of the Bush
era, when unilateralism was the dominating philosophy. It was an opening welcomed by France
and the rest of Europe. President Obama called for both greater responsibility and increased
cooperation for the purpose of advancing global peace and security.
In a March 2010 visit to the United States, President Sarkozy and President Obama held a joint
news conference in which the French president noted that he and other European leaders
appreciated the American president's integrity. Sarkozy characterized Obama as an honest partner
in the efforts to deal with issues facing the international community. Sarkozy said, "His word is his
bond, and that is important. No surprises. When he can, he delivers. When he can't, he says so."
The two presidents also offered a united front in the face of Iran's nuclear ambitions, and on the
war in Afghanistan.
France Review 2016
France
In 2011, Sarkozy and Obama again offered warm words to one another during a joint news
conference at the White House, emphasizing strong bilateral ties between their two countries.
Special Entry
The 2003 War in Iraq
In early 2003, international politics took center stage as the world grappled with disarming Iraq. In
this regard, as the United States-led movement toward war accelerated, Belgium made a surprise
announcement, which created an unanticipated obstacle for a possible war against Iraq.
Specifically, as tens of thousands of United States troops and aircrafts prepared to operate from
Turkish bases, Belgium announced it was planning to veto a United States request for NATO
military support in regard to Turkey, should a war with Iraq ensue. Indeed, Belgium, aided by
France and Germany, decided to block proposals that would begin the process of deploying
surveillance aircraft, Patriot missiles, as well as anti-chemical and anti-biological warfare protection
teams. The three countries believed that such preparations to defend Turkey would undermine the
diplomatic attempts to avert a war in Iraq. Critics said that the divisions within NATO on the issue
could damage the alliance. Without the involvement of France, the members of a NATO planning
committe eventually agreed to provide defensive support to Turkey.
Then, following a report delivered to the United Nations Security Council by Chief Weapons
Inspector Hans Blix and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed El
Baradei on Feb. 14, 2003, the French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said that inspections
showed signs of progress and should be allowed to continue. In his response to the United Nations,
de Villepin noted that the inspections process had not been taken to its conclusion, and only when
all options had been exhausted should force be used. Describing France as an "old country" which
had experienced wars and occupation, de Villepin asserted that France "has never ceased to stand
upright in the face of history and before mankind" and that his country wanted resolutely "to act
with all the members of the international community." Following his address, de Villepin's words
elicited a rare thunder of applause from United Nations members.
France, along with Germany, intended to put forth a plan aimed at averting a war with Iraq. The
plan includes a provision tripling the number of United Nations weapons inspectors on the ground
in Iraq, the deployment of United Nations peacekeepers, and the establishment of a country-wide
"no fly" zone. French President Jacques Chirac called for continued inspections before pursuing
military action, saying that nothing justified a war at this time; he also noted that the region did not
need another war. The French ambassador to the United States Jean David Lafitte acknowledged
that while progress had been slow in bringing Iraq into compliance with United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1441, maintenance of an inspections regime could produce the desired result of
France Review 2016
France
disarmament. France also continued to express its opposition to preparations for NATO's defense
of Turkey, noting that such measures undermine the chance of a peaceful resolution to the Iraq
situation.
Following another presentation by Blix and El Baradei at the Security Council, it appeared there
had been further progress made on the disarmament process; the United Kingdom and the United
States, however, took a dimmer view of things. As such, the United Kingdom began developing a
second resolution aimed at achieving either immediate disarmament or military action against Iraq.
Diplomatic negotiations surrounding the Iraq crisis, however, finally collapsed in March 2003.
Efforts to modify elements of the draft of a second United Nations Security Council Resolution
failed, despite the efforts by the United Kingdom to create an agreement that would satisfy the
misgivings of most of the non-permanent Security Council members. France and Russia decried
the provisions for an automatic trigger resulting in war if Iraq failed to accomplish various
benchmarks in disarmament. Both France and Russia earlier warned they would veto any
resolution containing such language.
With no progress made in regard to a second resolution, or in building consensus among the
Security Council, the United States and the United Kingdom withdrew the draft resolution. Then,
in an effort to pursue military action without overt illegality, which the defeat of a second resolution
would surely signify, the allies took cover under the original United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1441, which augured "serious consequences" for Iraqi non-compliance. Experts on
international jurisprudence, however, were still not at all agreed on this reasoning. Nevertheless,
military action against Iraq was launched by United States and United Kingdom forces.
At a European Union summit meeting in Brussels, Belgium, French President Jacques Chirac
stated he would not support a post-war Iraq administered by the United States and the United
Kingdom. He stressed that such an arrangement would legitimize the military intervention into Iraq
and would justify the war after the fact. Instead, the French President encouraged the creation of a
United Nations-administered civil authority. Although the French government stressed a desire to
continue bilateral relations with the United States and the United Kingdom, French officials were
clear about these objections. Indeed, following cordial talks with the United Kingdom Prime
Minister Tony Blair aimed at resolving differences, Chirac again made it clear that he believed
military action against Iraq to be outside the parameters of international jurisprudence.
In April 2003, the government of France called for a suspension of sanctions against Iraq, noting
that the economic development of Iraq was a vital aspect of the country's immediate reconstruction
efforts. Still, the French did not call for the lifting of sanctions entirely and also expressed the view
that the United Nations "oil for food" program remain under the aegis of the international body,
albeit with adjustments that correspond with Iraq's current needs.
The developments and diplomatic wrangling around the war in Iraq severely strained trans-Atlantic
France Review 2016
France
relations, particularly between the United States and France. Meanwhile, however, France found
itself forging closer ties with other European countries, such as Germany, Belgium and Russia. As
well, the French position on the war has garnered kudos from the Arab world. In this regard,
President Chirac went to the former French colony of Algeria on an unprecedented official state
visit. In the past, the colonial legacy had cumulatively resulted in conflicted French-Algerian
relations. Chirac's historic visit to the former French colony was met with applause across the Arab
world, and he was warmly received by Algerians in the streets of the capital city.
In 2004, France's position on Iraq had not changed substantially. While supporting subsequent
United Nations resolutions aimed at advancing Iraq's post-invasion scenario, rapprochement with
the United States did not come easily. Indeed, President Chirac chided United States President
Bush for advocating Turkey's entry into the European Union calling the American leader's remarks
an "intrusion" into European affairs.
Additional Considerations
The Global War on Terrorism
In 2005, Paris had significantly increased its military presence in Central Asia and Afghanistan. In
August 2005, French fighters began flying sorties under United States command in Afghanistan.
Also in August 2005, France directed the international naval effort to patrol of the seas between
the Horn of Africa and Pakistan, which were believed to be a terrorist enclave. In this way, despite
its continued opposition to the United States-led war in Iraq, in recent years, France has continued
to demonstrate its commitment to fighting the global war against terrorism.
Relations with Israel
In July 2004, Franco-Israeli relations became strained. In response to a wave of anti-Semitic
attacks in France, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urged French Jews to leave France and
emigrate to Israel. Indeed, Sharon's implicit statement about the precarious situation of Jews in
France may hold merit since government statistics indicate that 510 acts or threats occurred in the
first part of 2004 alone. Still, observers have noted that Sharon has his own interest in promoting
immigration to Israel as demographic trends are not favorable to the maintenance of a truly
democratic Jewish state without increasing numbers of Jews living there. Within two decades,
Jews may well become a minority in Israel.
At home in France, the public eschewed Sharon's call noting that the government has actively
sought to punish anti-Semitic attacks with severity. Meanwhile, French officials responded with
outrage to Sharon and the foreign ministry of France demanded an explanation for his blunt
France Review 2016
France
commentary. As well, the president of the National Assembly, Jean-Louis Debre, caustically noted
that the Israeli leader had "missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."
The leadership of both Israel and France has changed in recent times but France continues to
support the Middle East peace process and President Sarkozy has been a strong advocate of the
two-state solution.
In late June 2009, French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Nentanyahu to dismiss ultra-nationalist, Avigdor Lieberman, as foreign minister and replace him
with centrist opposition leader, Tzipi Livni. According to Israeli media, President Sarkozy urged
the Israeli leader to work with both Livni's Kadima Party and Defense Minister Ehud Barak's
Labour Party to "make history" and advance the peace process during a private meeting. It was
already well-know that Lieberman's controversial views in support of the Elon Plan, which
includes the expulsion of Arab citizens unwilling to sign loyalty oaths supporting the preservation of
the Jewish state, could well compromise that peace process.
According to the newspaper Yediot Aharonot, Sarkozy said: "I've always received Israeli foreign
ministers. I met with Tzipi Livni in the Élysée Palace, but with that one I simply can't meet. I'm
telling you, you need to get rid of that man. Get him out of the government and bring in Livni.
With her and with Barak you can make history." In the article published by Yediot Aharonot,
Netanyahu replied: "No need to exaggerate. Lieberman is a very nice person, and in private
conversations he speaks differently." Sarkozy then responded by comparing the Israeli foreign
minister to the French far-right xenophobe, Jean Marie Le Pen, saying: "In private conversations,
Jean-Marie Le Pen is also a nice person."
In late 2014, with the hardline government of Israel moving to solidify special national rights for
Jews in israel and with the peace process a distant memory, the international community's patience
waiting for an independent Palestinian state was being exhausted. Already, several countries
around the world recognized Palestine as a nation state, irrespective of Israel's objections, the
stymied peace process, as well as obstacles at the United Nations Security Council where Western
permanent members, such as the United States, have insisted on a negotiated settlement as the
only vehicle to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
But Palestinians gained a powerful boost at the start of December 2014 when the Socialistdominated French parliament voted to recognize Palestine. The move was symbolic and was not
expected to directly influence the status of Palestine internationally. However, it was a clear sign
that even major European powers -- including a veto-wielding permanent Security Council member
like France -- were frustrated by the stalled peace process. Already, other European countries, such
as Sweden and Spain, had taken similar symbolic measures as their parliaments "blessed" the nonbinding resolutions calling for the recognition of a Palestinian state.
France Review 2016
France
Relations with Libya
During his trip to Libya in 2007, newly-inaugurated French President Nicolas Sarkozy forged an
arms agreement with Libya. At stake was the purchase by Libya of French anti-tank missiles and
radio communications systems valued at about $405 million. It was the first such agreement with
a Western country since the lifting of the European Union embargo in 2004. Francois Hollande,
the opposition Socialists leader in France, called for a parliamentary inquiry into the deal, as well as
French-Libyan negotiations on the matter. Sarkozy has said that he would welcome such a move.
Relations with Iran
In mid-September 2007, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that the world should
prepare for war over the Iran's atomic activities. In a media interview, Kouchner observed that
while negotiations with Iran should be fully exhausted before embarking on a new course, the
world should be ready for a worst case scenario if such talks were ultimately unsuccessful. To this
end, he warned, "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war." He also noted that Iran
armed with nuclear weapons would present "a real danger for the whole world."
Signaling that France had taken a position in the debate over Iran burgeoning nuclear program,
Kouchner said that many French companies had been asked not to do business with Iraq. Making
clear that no prohibitions had been established, the French Foreign Minister noted that French
enterprises have been advised not to do so. As well, he made clear that France was in favor of
European Union sanctions against Iran.
For its part, Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes despite
allegations to the contrary by several countries in the West, including the United States.
Meanwhile, the United States has not foreclosed the possibility of military action against Iran to
prevent the acquisition of nuclear weaponry. Current United Nations Security Council resolutions
have imposed economic sanctions on Iran, but have stopped short of endorsing military action.
Since the contested election in Iran of 2009, along with the brutal crackdown on the opposition,
relations between Iran and the West -- including France -- were more strained. As noted above, by
2010, France was moving more into the orbit of the United States as regards dealing with Iran's
nuclear ambitions.
Note on FARC in Colombia
In late March 2008, a French aircraft and medical personnel were placed on stand by in French
France Review 2016
France
Guiana, in the event that kidnapped politician, Ingrid Betancourt, was released. For several years,
Betancourt, who holds dual citizenship in Colombia and France, has been held hostage by the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Colombia. While there was no conclusive
evidence that FARC intended to free Betancourt, the French government, led by President Nicolas
Sarkozy, noted that it had decided to be prepared in case her release was secured. Betancourt was
only one of many hostages held by FARC, although she has been one of the most well-known. A
fellow hostage who was recently released said that Betancourt was gravely ill and had urged the
Colombian government to work toward her release. The development came at a time when the
Colombian government put forth a deal by which it would offer prisoner amnesties in exchange
for the release of hostages; the deal also involved sending the FARC prisoners into exile in France.
By early April 2008, Betancourt had not been released. The French government was demanding
that she be freed while people took to the streets in France to call for her release.
Editor's Note: The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) is the oldest, largest and
most organized insurgent group in Colombia. It has widespread operations throughout Colombia
and occasionally on the borders of neighboring countries such as Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela and
Brazil. A leftist military organization seeking political power and economic reform, FARC receives
support from all segments of the population, but mostly at the rural level. FARC relies primarily on
kidnapping high-profile people for ransom money and overseeing drug operations as a means of
income. FARC is only one of a number of left-wing rebels and right-wing paramilitaries, which
have been in conflict with the Colombian authorities for decades. To date, more than 60 hostages,
including former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt and three United States defense
contractors, have been held hostage by FARC.
Rwanda accuses France of participation in genocide
A report by the Rwandan Ministry of Justice accused France of active and direct participation on
the genocide that claimed the lives of close to one million people in 1994. The 500-page Justice
Ministry report was issued after a two year investigation into the role played by the European
power and relied on testimonies from researchers, journalists and genocide survivirs to reach its
conclusions.
The report stated that France was aware of the Rwandan authorities' violent plans and even
provided military training for ethnic Bahutus who waged the bloody assault on ethnic Batutsis and
moderate Bahutus. Expressed more broadly, the report accused France of providing military,
logistical, political and diplomatic support to Rwanda's Bahutu-dominated government.
Indeed, 33 French military and political figures, including the late former President Francois
Mitterrand, former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, former Prime Minister Edouard
Balladur, and former Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, were identified in the report as deserving of
France Review 2016
France
prosecution. A statement by the Rwandan Ministry of Justice noted the following: "Considering
the seriousness of the alleged crimes, the Rwandan government has urged the relevant authorities
to bring the accused French politicians and military officials to justice."
For its part, the French government said that it would not respond to the allegations until it has had
time to study the report. Earlier in 2008, when French complicity in Rwanda's genocide had been
previously raised, current French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner denied any responsibility by
his country. That said, he acknowledged that some political mistakes had been made.
Throughout, France has said that its role in Rwanda was to protect civilians.
Note on International Effort in Libya:
France was a key player in NATO's support effort in Libya in 2011 as pro-democracy activists
rebelled against the Qadhafi regime. The NATO effort was aimed at providing security and
support to the activists who were being targeted by the Qadhafi forces. See Summary below.
Summary of Libya's Season of Unrest:
Coming on the heels of the successful "Jasmine Revolution" in Tunisia and the "Nile Revolution" in
Egypt, protests by thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators in Libya resulted in the liberation of
the eastern part of the country. As part of a brutal crackdown aimed at shoring up power in the
government's center of Tripoli, the Qadhafi regime opened fire on anti-government protesters
before commencing a brutal military offensive against opposition strongholds to the east.
Unapologetic for his ruthless tactics and in the face of worldwide condemnation, Qadhafi called for
the crushing of the resistance movement by all means necessary and "without mercy."
In response to the audacious move by Qadhafi to attack and kill his own people, the United
Nations Security Council, on Feb. 26, 2011, voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Libya and
to refer the Qadhafi regime to the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity.
Then, on March 17, 2011, the United Nations Security Council authorized a "no fly zone" against
Libya, with an international coalition commencing air strikes on military targets in that country,
with an eye on protecting the Libyan people from the Qadhafi regime. By the close of March
2011, NATO had taken control of the operation, the rebels were reconstituting their efforts at
taking control of eastern towns, and the Qadhafi regime said it welcomed an African Union plan
for a ceasefire and resolution.
But a month later in late April 2011, Libya was in a state of stalemate -- roughly divided between
pro-rebel eastern Libya and pro-Qadhafi western Libya. Misrata -- the only rebel-held city in the
west -- was a flashpoint for the conflict. The fact that ground on either side could be so quickly
gained and/or lost augured negatively for a quick end to the chaos in Libya. It was clear that the
France Review 2016
France
rebel movement was highly disorganized and reliant on the air strikes to make any progress in their
efforts to secure territory. They certainly had neither professional training nor efficient weaponry
to rely upon in their efforts. On the other hand, the pro-Qadhafi forces were demonstrating that
they were only being restrained by the threat of air strikes.
While this reality might have been viewed as discouraging news for the protest movement, they
took solace in the news that Qadhafi's regime appeared to be splintering from within, as evidenced
by a constant parade of high level defections. From May 2011 onward, there was some progress
from within the rebels' ranks, as British and French helicopters, operating under the aegis of the
prevailing NATO mission, were stepping up air attacks inside Libya.
In mid-August 2011, the rebels were advancing on Tripoli, the Qadhafi regime was being isolated.
All indications pointed to the notion that rebel fighters -- now far more organized -- were
attempting to lay siege on Tripoli in what was being dubbed "Operation Mermaid." In many senses,
the "end game" was in sight.
By September 2011, Tripoli had fallen to the rebels, and only two remaining pro-Qadhafi
strongholds remained: Qadhafi's hometown of Sirte and Bani Walid. Fierce fighting was reported
in these two areas, with a special emphasis on Sirte, where Qadhafi -- still evading captivity -- was
believed to be hiding.
Meanwhile, Interpol issued arrest warrants for Qadhafi, his son, and his former intelligence chief,
all three of whom were subject to charges of crimes against humanity by the International Criminal
Court (ICC). As well, the human rights group, Amnesty International, issued a report detailing
abuses committed by the Qadhafi regime and its loyalists during the civil war unfolding there.
It should be noted that pro-Qadhafi loyalists had crossed the southern border of the country into
Niger, while members of Qadhafi's family had taken refuge in Algeria. Despite the international
community's demands that members of Qadhafi's inner coterie be returned to Libya to face justice,
both Niger and Algeria were taking positions at odds with global consensus.
Certainly, in the realm of foreign relations, world powers were now recognizing the Transitional
National Council (TNC) as the lone legitimate governing authority of Libya. With the United
Nations General Assembly voting overwhelmingly to transfer control over Libya's seat at the
international body to the TNC, the Qadhafi regime's claim on power in Libya was consigned to the
history books.
On the domestic political landscape, an interim government was soon formed in Libya, with
Mahmoud Jibril at the helm of that cabinet, and with Mustafa Abdel-Jalil functioning as the TNC
head.
France Review 2016
France
In mid-October 2011, reports were emerging that Bani Walid had fallen to the transitional authority
fighters, and that Sirte was moving towards a similar fate. Indeed, on Oct. 20, 2011, Libyan
transitional authorities declared that Sirte -- the final pro-Qadhafi stronghold -- had fallen, Qadhafi
had died, and Libya's national liberation was at hand. Indeed, it was quite likely that the rebels'
brazen prediction was coming to pass: "Zero Hour" was finally descending on the Qadhafi regime
in Libya.
Attention would likely soon focus on the massive challenge of building a new Libyan nation state
with all the instruments and structures needed for stable and democratic governance. The new
leading forces in Libya made it clear that it was grateful for the efforts of NATO, led by France,
the United Kingdom and the United States.
Car bomb damages French embassy in Libyan capital of Tripoli -On April 23, 2013, a car bomb exploded close to the compound of the French embassy in the
Libyan capital city of Tripoli. The explosion occurred in the morning and damaged the embassy, as
well as several buildings in the area including two villas and several shopping establishments.
Because the embassy compound was empty at the time of the apparent terrorist attack, there were
no deaths and limited casualties - two security guards and a young girl were injured in the blast.
The French government condemned the attack with the French foreign ministry issuing the
following statement: "In conjunction with the Libyan authorities, our government departments will
make every effort to ensure that all light be shed on the circumstances of this heinous act and its
perpetrators quickly identified." But France also hard a sharp demand for the Libyan government
to assist in determining who was responsible for the attack and ensuring accountability. To that
end, French President Francois Hollande issued his own statement, as follows: "France expects the
Libyan authorities to ensure that all possible light is shed on this unacceptable act so that the
perpetrators are identified and brought to justice."
The attack on the French embassy in Tripoli came less than a year after militants stormed the
American consulate in Benghazi. Both incidences cast a harsh light on the reality that even in the
aftermath of the Qadhafi era, Libya was beset by instability, and foreign interests posed a
particularly attractive target for extremists militants of the type believed to be responsible for both
attacks on diplomatic entities.
Special Note on International Intervention in Mali
In early 2013, with the advance of the Islamists deeper and further south into Mali territory and
even taking control of the strategic town of Konna, the government of Mali appealed to France for
assistance in securing the country and the wider region. France heeded the call from its former
France Review 2016
France
colony and French jets were soon bombing targets in Mali, with an eye on repelling the Islamic
extremist militants. In addition to the aerial bombardment by French forces, French ground troops
were also operating in Mali with the objective of rooting out the extremist threat by groups allied
with terror enclaves, such as al-Qaida.
According to French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, Rafale fighter jets from France had
destroyed rebel training camps and organizational depots in Mali, which were being used as bases
for terrorist groups. A statement from the French Defense Ministry read as follows: "France's goal
is to lead a relentless struggle against terrorist groups, preventing any new offensive of these groups
to the south of Mali." French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said that the French intervention had
helped halt the recent gains made by Ansar Dine and another entity called "Movement for Oneness
and Jihad in West Africa." He said that the French intervention had prevented these Islamic
extremist militant entities from getting to the capital of Bamako, which he warned would have had
"appalling consequences." In an interview with the media, Fabius said: "Stopping the terrorists,
that's done."
As France was carrying out its battle against extremist Islamists in Mali, other countries were also
considering whether or not to become involved in some manner in the effort to curb the terrorist
Jihadist and protect global security. Notably, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron
foreclosed the notion of British troops operating on the ground in Mali; however, he acknowledged
that his country would offer offering logistical support to France and share intelligence in the effort
to repel Mali's Islamist movement. The British prime minister said, "What is being done in Mali is
in our interests and we should support France's actions." He continued, "There is a very dangerous
Islamist regime allied to al-Qaida in control of the north of that country. It was threatening the
south of that country and we should support the action that the French have taken." A report by
the Wall Street Journal indicated that the Obama administration in the United States was looking
towards some sort of limited assistance to the French effort, perhaps in the realm of providing
reconnaissance drones and air-intelligence equipment. Of course, the limited and cautious overtures
by the United Kingdom and the United States provided a contrast to France's rapid response to its
former colony's call for assistance.
A meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the situation in Mali was scheduled to
be held on January 14, 2013. The emergency meeting was convened at the request of vetowielding member, France. On that day, following the emergency meeting, the United Nations
Security Council issued its unanimous support for France's military intervention in Mali to fight
Islamist extremists. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued his personal sanction
for the actions of France saying that he hoped the intervention would assist in the restoration of
"Mali's constitutional order and territorial integrity." Indeed, the rapid French intervention was
being viewed as a necessary emergency step when the Islamists began advancing southward,
amidst fears they would take a foothold in the capital city of Bamako.
It should be noted that African troops, which were originally considered as the likely source of
France Review 2016
France
international military support for Mali, have not been sidelined in the process. Thousands of
African troops were set to join the Malian military and French forces in the effort to repel the
Islamists extremists. It seemed that France was anxious for the intervention to be as multilateral as
possible with France's United Nations ambassador, Gerard Araud, saying that although his country
enjoyed the "understanding and support" of the other Security Council members, France wanted
the participation of West African troops to occur "as quickly as possible." The multilateral
intervention force would be deployed officially under the aegis of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 2085, which was passed in December 2012 and gave sanction for a United Nationsauthorized mission to intervene in Mali if there was no negotiated resolution. African troops were
expected to be provided by Nigeria, Niger, Burkina Faso, Togo, Benin, and Senegal.
Note: France's intervention into Mali was being lauded by the government of that country, led by
interim Malian President Dioncounda Traore. Indeed, French President Francois Hollande arrived
in the historic city of Timbuktu on Feb. 2, 2013, to a hero's welcome. As Hollande toured
Timbuktu, people chanted "Vive la France."
Islamist Jihadist network threatens France for involvement in CAR and Mali
In mid-March 2014, an Islamist Jihadist extremist network, al-Minbar Jihandi Media, called on
aspiring Jihadist militants to attack France. The al-Minbar Jihadi Media Network published six
posters as part of its campaign titled, "We will not be silent, O France." The campaign and these
posters were intended to incite terror attacks against France. A publishing house for al-Qaida
affiliates, al-Minbar Jihadi Media was clearly moving into the arena of pro-terrorism propaganda.
At issue for al-Minbar Jihadi Media was France's military involvement in Mali and the Central
African Republic where Muslim extremists have been active. The network objected to France's
engagement in fighting extremist militant entities, such as Ansar al-Dine, and Tuareg rebels in Mali,
as well as France's activity in the Central African Republic where Muslim "Seleka" rebels seized
power and were gradually being repelled by a Christian militia.
In its clarion call for a Jihadist terror campaign targeting France, the network issued the following
dictate in one of its posters: "To our lone-wolves in France, assassinate the president of disbelief
and criminality, terrify his cursed government, and bomb them and scare them as a support to the
vulnerable in the Central African Republic."
The office of French President Francois Hollande responded to the explicit call for assassination by
stating that the government was alert. That being said, a spokesperson added, "This is not the first
time there have been threats. There were others during the Mali intervention and even before, so
we took precautionary measures." The spokesperson continued, "Just because they (threats) are
being publicized does not mean that they are new... Sometimes they are more dangerous when
France Review 2016
France
they are not publicized."
Special Report on Syrian Crisis:
Report of chemical weapons usage surfaces and exacerbates Syrian Crisis; has the "red line" been
crossed and will international powers now involve themselves in the Syrian civil war?
Summary:
Since early 2011, anti-government protests have spread and escalated across the Arab world; Syria
emerged as an addition to the list of countries experiencing unrest in March 2011. At first,
protesters stopped short of demanding the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, instead
demanding greater political freedom and efforts to end corruption. For his part, President Assad
announced he would advance a reform agenda, which would include lifting the emergency laws
that had been in place for decades, and increased rights to the country's disenfranchised Kurdish
population. These moves were aimed at quelling the rising climate of unrest gripping the country.
But over time, as protests continued, and as the Assad regime carried out a hard line crackdown on
dissent, tensions escalated between the government and the protesters.
In mid-2011, the United Nations Security Council and the Arab League respectively issued
condemnations of the violence in Syria. As well, the United Nations Human Rights Council called
for an independent inquiry into the violent crackdown on dissent. Meanwhile, global leaders were
calling for President Assad to step down from power, given the brutality of the Syrian regime's
crackdown on protesters. As of 2012, the bloody crackdown by the Assad regime on antigovernment protesters was ongoing. In fact, the crackdown appeared to become more relentless in
places such as Homs and Aleppo. Despite widespread condemnation from the West, a United
Nations Security Resolution on the situation in Syria was subject to veto by Russia and China. A
subsequent vote in the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly condemned Syria for its
brutal crackdown. A prevailing truce, brokered by the joint United Nations/Arab League envoy,
Kofi Annan, was established in the interests of preventing further bloodshed; however, it was
revealed to be an exercise in theory rather than practice and eventually the United Nations
monitoring mission ended in failure.
Syria has, meanwhile, been subject to sanctions by various countries and was sliding into pariah
status in the international community. Assassinations, alleged massacres, geopolitical tensions with
Turkey and Israel, and most recently, suspicions about the use of chemical weapons, have since
mired the Syrian landscape. Indeed, it was increasingly clear that Syria had slipped into a state of
civil war and was facing a devastating humanitarian crisis. That crisis reached new heights in
August 2013 with claims that Syrian forces launched a chemical attack on the outskirts of
Damascus. Was this the clear sign that United States President Barack Obama's "red line" had
France Review 2016
France
definitively been crossed? And would the international community become more involved in the
Syrian crisis? The answers to those questions were yet to be determined.
Chemical weapons issue resurfaces:
On Aug. 21, 2013, Syrian opposition activists and rebels said that chemical weapons had killed
hundreds of people on the outskirts of Damascus. They said that government forces launched a
major bombardment on rebel forces in the area of Ghouta using rockets with toxic agents. The
Syrian government dismissed the accusations as "illogical and fabricated." The Syrian military
further said that rebel forces were suffering major defeat and were using claims of chemical attacks
to draw attention away from the fact that they were losing the war.
The claims and counter-claims set up rival theories that could not be verified simply by looking at
the videotaped footage of victims that immediately surfaced online. Stated differently, while the
international media was able to obtain visual evidence of victims who had died, that footage could
not prove whether they died as a result of conventional military bombardment or due to exposure
to toxic substances. However, there was an increasing chorus of disturbing assertions by medical
staff that the victims, particularly children, appeared to have suffered suffocation and blurred
vision. As well, further videotaped footage was starting to surface about the purported attacks, this
time showing victims enduring convulsions or distinctly encountering breathing problems. In an
interview with BBC News, Professor Alexander Kekule of the Institute for Medical Microbiology
at Halle University in Germany, admitted that the videotaped images of the victims certainly
suggested they had been subject to a chemical agent of some kind. However, he made a point of
noting that none of the victims showed signs that they had been exposed to chemicals such as
sarin or organophosphorous nerve agents.
The international community seemed initially wary to accept the claims of chemical attacks,
perhaps with the memory of the inconclusive chemical weapons claims so fresh in their minds
from earlier in the year (2013). Only recently, United Nations investigators traveled to Syria to
look into those earlier claims. In August 2013, the United Nations convened an emergency
meeting to discuss the newest chemical attack claims and its immediate response was to seek
clarification on the situation in Syria. As noted by Maria Cristina Perceval, Argentina's United
Nations Ambassador, "There is a strong concern among council members about the allegations and
a general sense that there must be clarity on what happened and the situation must be followed
closely."
That being said, individual countries -- such as France and the United Kingdom-- were going
further and demanding that United Nations inspectors who were already investigating the earlier
allegations of chemical attacks in Syria now look into these fresh claims. The United States
echoed their call via White House spokesperson Josh Earnest, who said: "The United States is
deeply concerned by reports that hundreds of Syrian civilians have been killed in an attack by
France Review 2016
France
Syrian government forces, including by the use of chemical weapons, near Damascus earlier today.
We are formally requesting that the United Nations urgently investigate this new allegation. The
United Nations investigative team, which is currently in Syria, is prepared to do so, and that is
consistent with its purpose and mandate." Both the European Union and the Arab League entered
the fray, adding their own voices to the call for United Nations inspectors to go look into the
matter.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Russia had a different view and noted that the timing of the fresh claims
of chemical attacks came just as United Nations inspectors were in Syria to investigate the
chemical claims from earlier in 2013 The Russian foreign ministry said, "This makes us think that
we are once again dealing with a premeditated provocation." Indeed, there was a legitimate
question as to why the Syrian government would choose to use chemical weapons at a time when
United Nations inspectors were "in country" and especially given United States President Barack
Obama's 2012 famous statement that his country would not be involving itself in the Syrian crisis
unless the Assad regime used chemical weapons -- essentially crossing a vital "red line" -- that
could augur international military action.
There was incremental movement in that direction on Aug. 22, 2013, when the United Kingdom,
France, and Turkey all demanded that the international community take a strong stand against the
Syrian regime, if the chemical weapons attack was verified. France went further with French
Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius saying that if the claims of a chemical attack proved to be true, a
"reaction of force" would result. The United Kingdom issued a similar threat via the British Foreign
Office, noting, "We believe a political solution is the best way to end the bloodshed" but also
warning that the government of Prime Minister David Cameron "has said many times we cannot
rule out any option that might save innocent lives in Syria." Meanwhile, Turkey goaded the United
Nations about its symbolic "foot dragging" as Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu declared:
"All red lines have been crossed but still the United Nations Security Council has not even been
able to take a decision."
On Aug. 23, 2013, United States President Barack Obama offered comments on the alleged use of
chemical weapons in Syria saying that the claims constituted a "big event, of grave concern." In an
interview with CNN, President Obama noted that the conflict in Syria would have a bearing on
United States national interests "both in terms of us making sure that weapons of mass destruction
are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region." Nevertheless,
the United States leader struck a cautious note, reminding journalists that his country was still in
the process of seeking confirmation on the matter of chemical weapons usage; however, he
asserted that if the allegations proved to be true, the crisis would "require America's attention."
Left unsaid was the nature of that attention. For his part, President Obama urged prudent action,
tacitly reminding people of the consequences of the reckless military intervention of his
predecessor, George W. Bush, into Iraq. The United States president said: "Sometimes what we've
seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets
France Review 2016
France
us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult,
costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region."
Around this time, Russia maintained its belief that the use of chemical agents might be a
provocation by the opposition. Still, Russia was now urging Syria to cooperate with an "objective
investigation" by United Nations chemical weapons experts. United Kingdom Foreign Secretary
William Hague indirectly addressed this suggestion that the use of chemical agents was a
provocation by rebel forces saying, "I know that some people in the world would like to say this is
some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria. I think the chances of that are
vanishingly small and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime on a large
scale."
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon demanded an immediate investigation to clear up
the matter. He said: "I can think of no good reason why any party -- either government or
opposition forces -- would decline this opportunity to get to the truth of the matter." Ban also
emphasized the fact that any use of chemical weapons -- by any actor or party -- would be a
violation of international law, which would inevitably result in "serious consequences for the
perpetrator."
Key Developments:
On Aug. 24, 2013, the international medical assistance organization, Medecins Sans Frontieres, or
MSF, ("Doctors Without Borders" in English), confirmed that it had treated as many as 3,600
patients with "neurotoxic symptoms," and noted that 355 of those patients had died. This news
from MSF augmented the claim that the use of chemical agents were used in Syria in the final
week of August 2013 although the international medical assistance organization was careful to
note that it could not "scientifically confirm" the use of chemical weapons. MSF Director of
Operations Bart Janssens said: "MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these
symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack. However, the reported symptoms of the
patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events, characterized by the massive
influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of
medical and first aid workers, strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent." He
continued, "This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely
prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons."
On Aug. 25, 2013, the Assad regime again dismissed charges that it had used chemical toxins or
poisons on Syrian citizens but did agree to allow United Nations inspectors to travel to suspected
sites of chemical attacks to investigate the prevailing accusations. The United Nations said that
Syria had agreed to allow investigators to operate in an environment of safety, even promising a
ceasefire during inspections. However, as the convoy of vehicles carrying chemical weapons
inspectors was driving to the Damascus suburb to carry out the investigation on Aug. 26, 2013,
France Review 2016
France
they were fired upon by snipers. The first vehicle in the convoy was repeatedly hit by gunfire,
forcing it to discontinue its path. The other vehicles in the convoy, however, were able to get to
the suspected sites and collect samples from victims, despite coming under gunfire. The United
Nations released a statement describing what happened and condemning the attack on its convoy
as follows: "The first vehicle of the Chemical Weapons Investigation Team was deliberately shot at
multiple times by unidentified snipers in the buffer zone area. It has to be stressed again that all
sides need to extend their cooperation so that the team can safely carry out their important work."
Should the United Nations' investigation end with evidence of the use of chemical agents, toxins, or
poisons, the general consensus was that such confirmation would bolster the case for an
international intervention into Syria. There were few hopes that veto-wielding Russia and China
would sanction the use of force in Syria at the United Nations Security Council. However, there
was a pertinent precedent for international action on the basis of humanitarian reasons.
Specifically, the NATO campaign against Serbia to protect the people of Kosovo was undertaken
without a United Nations Security Council Resolution and against the wishes of Russia -- an ally of
Serbia. It was, thus, possible that Western powers could again go the NATO route -- this time in
Syria.
A meeting of leaders from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and other NATO allies
was in the offing to discuss possible options. United States Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel
appeared to be reflecting the Obama administration's cautious stance regarding action in Syria
when he said: "The United States is looking at all options regarding the situation in Syria. We're
working with our allies and the international community. We are analyzing the intelligence. And we
will get the facts. And if there is any action taken, it will be in concert with the international
community and within the framework of legal justification."
Of course, the official report on the suspected chemical weapons usage in Syria by the United
Nations was expected to take weeks to prepare. As such, the United States was indicating that
there was a "clear" and "compelling" case to be made of those charges against the Assad regime in
Syria. On Aug. 30, 2013, United States Secretary of State John Kerry released an unclassified
intelligence report on the matter. Secretary of State Kerry said: “Read for yourselves the evidence
from thousands of sources. This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons.
This is what Assad did to his own people.” The United States' top diplomat also delivered the
shocking claim that more than 1,400 people were killed in the chemical attack -- at least 400 of
whom were children.
France was also giving weight to the United States' claims regarding a massive chemical attack in
Syria, with French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault releasing a report in parliament. That report
went so far as to note that while the Syrian army had already -- and repeatedly -- used chemical
weapons against the Syrian people, on Aug. 21, 2013, it launched an attack using "massive use of
chemical agents." The French report further alleged that the chemical attack at that time "could not
France Review 2016
France
have been ordered and carried out by anyone but the Syrian government." The French report
additionally noted that Syria's arsenal of chemical weapons was "massive and diverse" and
included both the nerve agent, sarin, and the toxic known agent, VX.
France was, therefore, maintaining its stance that there should be an international response to
Syria's use of chemical weapons. On the issue of France's role in that response, Prime Minister
Ayrault said, "France is determined to penalize the use of chemical weapons by Assad's regime
and to dissuade with a forceful and firm response." He also indicated that France was working
with international partners to build a coalition that would carry out a possible course of action
against Syria. The French government was being very emphatic about the obligation of world
powers to respond to the use of chemical weapons in defiance of international conventions. As
stated by French President Francois Hollande on Sept. 3, 2013: "When a chemical massacre takes
place, when the world is informed of it, when the evidence is delivered, when the guilty parties are
known, then there must be an answer." The French leader urged other European countries to show
unity on the issue.
The claims about Syria's use of chemical weapons by the United States and France were
augmented by the statement of NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who declared
that he was personally convinced that a chemical attack had, indeed, taken place, and that the
Assad regime was responsible for that attack. That being said, there was no suggestion that
NATO would be involved in any intervention into the Syrian crisis in the manner in which the
regional security bloc was engaged in Libya.
On Sept. 4, 2013, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that any intervention into
the Syrian crisis should have the blessing of the United Nations, and urged the Security Council to
take action. He also declared, "This is a larger issue than the conflict in Syria. This is about our
collective responsibility to humankind." Left unsaid by Secretary General Ban was the fact that
veto-wielding Russia and China were not eager to accommodate a resolution that would authorize
such intervention.
United States weights its options:
Meanwhile, even as the evidence was increasing to support the claim of a chemical weapons attack
in Syria, the political will to build an international coalition to act against Syria was eroding. At
issue was a parliamentary vote in the United Kingdom's House of Commons urging an international
response to the Syria chemical weapons crisis. The vote came amidst British Prime Minister
David Cameron's vociferous condemnation of Syria's apparent use of chemical weapons, and his
suggestion that the United Kingdom would join the United States and France in delivering some
kind of punitive action against Syria. But when the parliamentary vote went down to defeat in the
House on Commons on Aug. 29, 2013, it was apparent that the United Kingdom would not be a
player in any kind of military intervention.
France Review 2016
France
Irrespective of the political developments across the Atlantic, in the United States, President
Barack Obama on Aug. 30, 2013, made clear that he was still considering the full range of
options in response to Syria's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens. Referring to the
aforementioned report on the suspected chemical weapons usage in Syria released by Secretary of
State Kerry, President Obama said, "As you've seen, today we've released our unclassified
assessment detailing with high confidence that the Syrian regime carried out a chemical weapons
attack that killed well over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children. This follows the horrific
images that shocked us all."
With an eye on showing why the use of chemical weapons required a response, President Obama
said, "This kind of attack is a challenge to the world. We cannot accept a world where women and
children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale." He continued, "So, I have said
before, and I meant what I said that, the world has an obligation to make sure that we maintain the
norm against the use of chemical weapons." In this way, the United States president was making
it clear that the international community had an obligation to respond to Syria's use of chemical
weapons -- an act that was undertaken in defiance of international law and in contravention to
international norms.
Syria's stance:
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has repeatedly denied that his forces launched any chemical
attacks. The Syrian leader has warned of a wider Middle Eastern war if foreign countries decide to
move forward with military action against Syria. That wider war could occur if Assad decided to
react to a yet-to-occur military strike by international powers on Syria. Some of the possibilities
available to Assad would include retaliatory attacks on pro-Western allies of the United States, such
as Israel, Jordan, and Turkey. But the reality was that Syria's military already had its hands full
fighting the civil war at home. Moreover, Syria likely could not risk sparking the ire of Israel, with
its own well-armed military, or Jordan, which hosts United States fighter jets, missiles and troops,
or Turkey -- a NATO member state. Indeed, an attack on any NATO country, such as Turkey,
would prompt a response from the entire security alliance.
Status update:
On Sept. 8, 2013, the European Union called for no action to go forward with regard to Syria until
the findings on the chemical agents were made available by the United Nations investigative team.
As well, plans for a full vote in the United States Congress authorizing use of force against the
Syria regime were cancelled.
At issue was an unexpected diplomatic breakthrough that emerged when United States Secretary of
State John Kerry uttered a (seemingly) off-hand remark during a news conference in London on
France Review 2016
France
Sept. 9, 2013 with British Foreign Secretary William Hague. Secretary of State Kerry said that
President Assad could prevent a military strike on Syria if he handed over "every single bit" of his
chemical weapons to the international community. At the time, Secretary of State Kerry said that
he did not expect Assad to respond to this call; but, in fact, the remark appeared to have sparked
fresh possibilities for a diplomatic solution with Russia championing the idea of subjecting Syria's
chemical weapons stockpile to international auditors, and then placing them under the aegis of
international jurisdiction. Syria -- Russia's client state in the Middle East -- was almost immediately
scrambling to say that it would be willing to move in this direction. That stance by Syria functioned
also as an admission by the Syrian regime that it was, in fact, in possession of chemical weapons.
Until that moment, the Assad regime would not even acknowledge that reality.
On Sept. 10, 2013, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem offered a public admission of the Assad
regime's chemical weapons stockpile when he said: "We are ready to inform about the location of
chemical weapons, halt the production of chemical weapons, and show these objects to
representatives of Russia, other states and the United Nations." He continued, "Our adherence to
the Russian initiative has a goal of halting the possession of all chemical weapons."
On the night of Sept. 10, 2013, United States President Obama delivered a national address on the
Syrian issue. Originally, the speech had been regarded as an opportunity for the president to build
congressional support -- then, at anemic levels -- for authorizing strikes against Syria, and assuring
a war-weary and skeptical nation that such action was necessary. Now, however, the speech had a
two-fold purpose -- to bolster that aforementioned case against Syria, but also to address the
emerging diplomatic channel.
As regards the former objective, President Obama presented a succinct case for acting against
Syria. President Obama emphasized his conviction that the Assad regime was responsible for the
chemical toxins attack that ensued around Ghouta on Aug. 21, 2013, characterizing the scene of
death as "sickening," reminding the global community that such an attack was a violation of
international law, and warning Americans that it posed a threat to United States national security.
But the president also opened the door to a negotiated settlement on the issue of Syria's chemical
weapons arsenal and usage. He said that the Russian plan to report Syria's chemical weapons
arsenal and place them under the aegis of international jurisdiction constituted "encouraging signs"
and announced that he would pursue a "diplomatic path." The president said that his top diplomat,
Secretary of State Kerry, would travel to Geneva in Switzerland to meet his Russian counterpart,
Sergei Lavrov, with an eye on pursuing a negotiated settlement on the issue of dealing with Syria's
chemical weapons.
President Obama offered cautious support for this path forward, saying, "It's too early to tell
whether [the plan] would succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its
commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons
France Review 2016
France
without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad's strongest allies." President
Obama defended his decision to consider military strikes against Syria, arguing that the current
diplomatic opening was only possible as a result of the credible threat of military force by the
United States. Accordingly, the United States leader made it clear that his country's armed forces
would maintain their posture, saying: "Meanwhile, I've ordered our military to maintain their
current posture, to keep the pressure on Assad and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy
fails."
While United States pundits parried opinions over the effectiveness and utility of President
Obama's speech, a poll from CNN showed that while a majority of Americans remained skeptical
about involving the country in the Syrian crisis, an overwhelming majority expressed support for
President Obama's approach to Syria. In precise terms, there was a split decision on whether or
not the president's case for strikes with 47 percent of Americans saying the president had done so
and had 50 percent saying that he had not. However, 61 percent of Americans said they favored
President Obama's "wait for diplomacy and hold steady with the threat of action" approach as set
forth in his national address.
On Sept. 11, 2013, Russia officially handed over its plan for placing Syria's stockpile under
international control to the United States. Discussion over its contents was expected to take place
in Geneva, Switzerland, between United States Secretary of State Kerry and Russian Foreign
Minister Lavrov. Those negotiations would be of a bilateral nature. The Obama administration
announced that in addition to Secretary of State Kerry's meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov, the
United States' top diplomat would also meet with the United Nations-Arab League special envoy
on Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi.
On that very day, difficult discussions also commenced in the United Nations Security Council -with particular emphasis among the permanent veto-wielding members, United States, United
Kingdom, France, Russia, and China -- over the proposition and the associated United Nations
resolution.
The diplomatic path was not without serious obstacles. Russia was demanding that the United
States withdraw its threat of force, while France -- the United States' ally on the issue of action
against Syria -- was crafting a United Nations Security Council resolution that would include a
provision for precisely such action, should Syria fail to comply with the dictates of the plan. At
issue was France's inclusion of a Chapter VII provision (of the United Nations charter), which
would effectively authorize the use of force if Syria failed to adhere to its stated obligations. For
its part, Russia advocated for a non-binding declaration supporting its initiative.
At stake in that initiative was a demand for Syria to provide a full audit of its chemical weapons -including varieties of toxins and storage locations -- within 15 days, as well as procedures
facilitating the transfer of control over those chemical substances, and ultimately, their
France Review 2016
France
destruction. Of course, the issue of destruction itself presented a disagreement between Russia and
Syria with the latter not keen on that aspect of the plan. Still, with the client state of Syria reliant
on Russia to save the regime from United States strikes, it was likely that the arsenal of chemical
toxins would ultimately be set for elimination.
Complicating the diplomatic path was an opinion editorial piece penned by Russian President
Vladimir Putin, which was published by the New York Times. At the more conventional level, the
piece included a fulsome plea for diplomacy by Putin as follows: "The potential strike by the
United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and
religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially
spreading the conflict far beyond Syria's borders."
Putin also urged international action via global instruments of jurisprudence, noting that any actions
should go through the United Nations Security Council, which stood as "one of the few ways to
keep international relations from sliding into chaos." Putin also offered the reasonable argument
that the United Nations could go down the road of obsolescence as its precursor, the League of
Nations, if "influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without
Security Council authorization." Left unstated by the Russian leader, however, was the fact that
his country's penchant for United Nations authorization for the use of force was not at play during
the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Afghanistan, or even its limited
engagement in the Georgian territory of South Ossetia most recently.
The most incendiary element in Putin's editorial was perhaps his chastisement of President
Obama's declaration on United States' exceptionalism. Putin argued against that claim, stating:
"And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the
United States’ policy is What makes America different...it’s what makes us exceptional. It is
extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the
motivation." This statement was a stunning example of irony coming from a world leader who
declared to his fellow Russians in February 2013: "We are a victorious people! It is in our genes, in
our genetic code!"
The Obama administration responded to this provocative opinion piece by Putin a day later on
Sept. 12, 2013, with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney saying, "It's worth also pointing out
there’s a great irony in the placement of an op-ed like this, because it reflects the truly exceptional
tradition of this country of freedom of expression." Carney then went on to note that freedom of
expression and free speech were "on the decrease in Russia." Carney also used the occasion to
place the burden of the success of a diplomatic path on Russia, noting that the Russian president
had placed his "prestige and credibility on the line" in offering a proposal to Syria to turn over its
chemical weapons.
The Putin versus Obama contretemps aside, the diplomatic channels remained open. On Sept. 12,
France Review 2016
France
2013, the United Nations announced it had received documents from Syria, effectively acceding
to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the production and use of chemical
weapons. Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Ja'afar, said, "Legally speaking Syria
has become, starting today, a full member of the (chemical weapons) convention."
The move was the first significant indication that Syria was attempting to meet the demands of the
international community. Syrian President Assad said in an interview with Russian media that
now that those documents had been dispatched, the chemical weapons audit data would be
submitted within 30 days of signing the Chemical Weapons Convention. But Assad appeared to be
reticent about relinquishing his control over the situation, arguing that Syria's assent to the Russian
plan was "not unilateral" and that his country would only accept it "if America stops military threats
and if other countries supplying the rebels with chemical weapons also abide by the agreement."
United States Secretary of State Kerry quickly disposed of the notion that Assad was calling the
shots, warning the Syrian leader that "this is not a game." Kerry also indicated that he viewed
Assad's promise to submit chemical weapons data with suspicion. Kerry instead asserted the
following in regard to Syria's chemical weapons audit: “It has to be real. It has to be
comprehensive. It has to be verifiable. It has to be credible. It has to be timely and implemented in
a timely fashion. And finally there ought to be consequences if it doesn't take place.”
On Sept. 13, 2013, a preview of the highly anticipated United Nations' report on Syria's suspected
use of chemical weapons emerged in the public purview. The chief chemical weapons inspector,
Ake Sellstrom, acknowledged that the report was complete but that its release would be decided
by the secretary general of the United Nations. The United Nations report was not expected to
expressly assign blame for the use of chemical weapons in Syria, although according to sources, it
would augment existing findings about the horror that unfolded in Ghouta, and its scientific
evidence based on blood, urine, and soil samples would provide compelling suggestions as to the
party responsible for the chemical weapons attack.
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon indicated the findings from the United Nations
inspectors would "overwhelmingly" confirm that chemical weapons were used in Syria. Speaking
from the United Nations Women's International Forum, the head of the United Nations did not
elaborate on which entity -- the Syrian regime or the Syrian rebels -- were responsible for the use
of chemical weapons in that country; however, Ban was heard saying that Syrian President Assad
was guilty of "crimes against humanity." Ban also said, "Therefore, I'm sure that there will be
surely the process of accountability when everything is over."
Meanwhile, negotiations were ongoing in Geneva (Switzerland) between the top diplomats from
the United States and Russia respectively -- Secretary of State Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov
-- with leaks indicating that the two men enjoyed a good rapport. The negotiations were being
characterized as "constructive" and went late into the wee hours of Sept. 14, 2013, suggesting that
climate was ripe with the possibility of forging a deal.
France Review 2016
France
Chemical Weapons Deal
On Sept. 14, 2013, United States Secretary of State Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov
announced that a breakthrough agreement had been reached as regards the Syrian chemical
weapons controversy, and that diplomacy had won the day. At issue was the threat of force from
the United States given the fact that Syria had crossed the so-called "red line" be using chemical
weapons. Speaking at a joint news conference with his Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister
Lavrov, Secretary of State John Kerry said of the concord: “If fully implemented, this framework
can provide greater protection and security to the world.”
The agreement , titled “Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons,” calls for a full
accounting of its chemical weapons stockpile within one week, the destruction of all production
equipment by November 2013, and the elimination or transfer of the arsenal of chemical weapons
by the middle of 2014. Achieving the objectives of the agreement promised to be difficult. A one
week deadline for a full audit of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal was strenuously aggressive. As
well, the destruction of production equipment and chemical toxins by 2014 was considered
unprecedented since previous processes of this nature have typically taken several years to
complete. Moreover, there would be complicated questions yet to address, such as how to ensure
the safety of international inspectors in Syria.
It should also be noted that agreement on a United Nations Security Council resolution mandating
Syrian disarmament on chemical weapons still promised to be potentially fractious. Russia was
reluctant to the notion of adding a Chapter VII provision (authorizing the use of force if Syria
reneged on its obligations) to the resolution, although Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov intimated
that the provision could be added in the future in a worse case scenario. As such, the United
States was not expected to press for that particular inclusion at this time.
The diplomatic breakthrough and the agreement itself were thus being lauded by all veto-wielding
members of the United Nations Security Council (the United States, the United Kingdom, France,
Russia, and China), as well as the broader United Nations and NATO. But with the same lack of
diplomatic restraint shown by Russian President Putin in his opinion editorial in the New York
Times, Syria's Assad regime hailed the breakthrough agreement as a "victory" for that country.
Syrian Reconciliation Minister Ali Haidar declared in an interview with Russian media, "It's a
victory for Syria achieved thanks to our Russian friends."
United States Secretary of State Kerry quelled Assad regime's bravado warning on Sept. 15, 2013,
that the United States retained its right to carry out punitive strikes against Syria if that country did
not meet its publicly stated international obligations. Secretary of State Kerry said, "If diplomacy
has any chance to work, it must be coupled with a credible military threat." "We cannot have
hollow words in the conduct of international affairs," Kerry added.
France Review 2016
France
Already, President Obama in the United States had reminded the Syrian regime that while the
agreement was "an important step" in the right direction, his country reserved the right to act
against Syria for failing to meet its obligations. The United States leader said, "If diplomacy fails,
the United States remains prepared to act." Indeed, the United States Pentagon noted that the
United States military remained in a posture poised for military strikes against Syria.
Within the rebel ranks, the agreement was being regarded with scorn and bitterness. Indeed, the
military leader of the anti-Assad Free Syrian Army, General Salim Idriss, dismissed the deal as
irrelevant, saying, “All of this initiative does not interest us. Russia is a partner with the regime in
killing the Syrian people.” Idriss also cast the deal as a Russian plan intended to gift the Assad
regime with more time, and as such, he vowed to keep up the fight.
It should be noted that even as the world was focused on the diplomatic track in the second week
of September 2013, fighting between the Syrian military and rebels continued. The main
battleground was the Christian town of Maaloula, where al-Nusra fighters linked with al-Qaida
were putting up a tough fight.
United Nations chemical inspectors confirm sarin attack; implicate Assad regime -By the third week of September 2013, the United Nations released its report in which it confirmed
that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The report by scientific experts stated that the banned
chemical nerve agent, sarin, was dispersed using rockets into the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. The
United Nations inspectors said that they had been able to procure significant evidence upon which
to base their conclusions. That conclusion, in the words of the inspectors, was as follows: “The
environmental, chemical and medical samples we have collected provide clear and convincing
evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin.”
The report stopped short of assigning blame for the use of sarin, however the forensic details of
the weapons appeared to implicate the Syrian government in the chemical weapons attack.
Specifically, the report detailed the size and shape of the munitions, and the precise direction from
which the munitions had been fired. These elements foreclosed the possibility that rebel forces
were responsible for the chemical weapons attack, as alleged by the Assad regime, and as
suggested by President Putin of Russia.
Indeed, the inspectors were able to carry out standard ordinance identification and crater analysis
to conclude that two types of rockets had been used. Meanwhile, using angular measurements
from the points where rockets had struck to their points of origin, the inspectors were able to note
that the point of origin was a Syrian military complex. The identification of the rockets, along with
size and sophistication of the launchers, and finally the angular plot analysis, together bolstered the
unofficial assessment that the Syrian government and not the insurgents were responsible for the
France Review 2016
France
chemical attack on Ghouta.
The details of the report also suggested that the attack was more lethal than previously thought.
First, based on the remnants of a warhead recovered by inspectors, it was clear that its capacity of
sarin was quite large at around 56 liters. Second, the low temperature at the time of the attack
meant that the sarin would prevail on the ground levels, even penetrating the lower levels of
buildings where, according to the report, "many people were seeking shelter.”
After a briefing of the United Nations Security Council, which included a presentation of the
report's findings by Dr. Ake Sellstrom -- a leading chemical weapons experts -- United Nations
Secretary Ban Ki-Moon offered the following assessment: “The report makes for chilling reading.
The findings are beyond doubt and beyond the pale. This is a war crime.” Secretary General Ban
also stayed away from assigning blame to any particular party; however, he said that he hoped the
seriousness of the situation would spur a new diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis.
Such a hope was unlikely to be realized. Already Russia was downplaying the report as
unconvincing. Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, suggested that there
remained several unanswered questions and said, “We need not jump to any conclusions.” Russia
later went further and claimed the United Nations finding were "one sided." Russian Deputy
Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said, "We are disappointed, to put it mildly, about the approach
taken by the U.N. secretariat and the U.N. inspectors, who prepared the report selectively and
incompletely." He continued, "Without receiving a full picture of what is happening here, it is
impossible to call the nature of the conclusions reached by the U.N. experts ... anything but
politicized, preconceived and one-sided."
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius responded to Russia's critique of the United Nations
inspectors' report saying, "We are surprised by Russia's attitude because they are calling into
question not the report, but the objectivity of the inspectors... I don't think anybody can call into
question inspectors that have been appointed by the U.N."
The United Kingdom ambassador to the United Nations, Mark Lyall Grant, noted that the evidence
pointed to a sophisticated chemical attack at the hands of the Assad regime. He said, “This was no
cottage-industry use of chemical weapons." Pointing to the variety of munitions and the trajectories
that had been plotted, Grant stated: “In our view, that there is no remaining doubt that it was the
regime that used chemical weapons.”
United States ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, acknowledged that in the
aftermath of Iraq, there was justifiable skepticism. But referring to the scientific evidence
presented the aforementioned expert, Sellstrom, she said that it was important to focus on the
facts. Powers said, “We understand some countries did not accept on faith that the samples of
blood and hair that the United States received from people affected by the Aug. 21 attack
contained sarin. But now Dr. Sellstrom’s samples show the same thing. And it’s very important to
France Review 2016
France
note that the regime possesses sarin, and we have no evidence that the opposition posses sarin.”
The United Nations itself entered the fray to defend the work of its chemical weapons experts who
endured being shot at in Syria, in order to procure copious amounts of samples, and then carry out
extensive analysis in record time. United Nations spokesperson, Martin Nesirky, declared: "The
findings in that report are indisputable. They speak for themselves and this was a thoroughly
objective report on that specific incident." Nesirky also emphasized the fact that there was an
assiduously cross-checked chain of custody of all the environmental and biomedical samples used
in the chemical weapons inquest.
It should be noted that an analysis of the United Nations' chemical inspectors' report by the Arms
Control Association made clear that the findings were fair, factual, and convincing. The Arms
Control Association drew attention to the annexes of the United Nations' chemical inspectors'
report, stating, “The additional details and the perceived objectivity of the inspectors buttress the
assignment of blame to Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government.” As well, it should be noted that a
separate investigation of the use of chemical weapons in Syria was carried out by Human Rights
Watch, which also concluded that the Assad regime -- and not the rebels -- were behind the sarin
attack. Indeed, Human Rights Watch concluded that sarin-filled shells had been fired from a
military base in Syria supervised by Maher Assad -- the brother of the Syrian president.
United Nations chemical inspectors confirm sarin attack; implicate Assad regime -In late September 2013, the United Nations released its report in which it confirmed that chemical
weapons were used in Syria. The report by scientific experts stated that the banned chemical
nerve agent, sarin, was dispersed using rockets into the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. The United
Nations inspectors said that they had been able to procure significant evidence upon which to base
their conclusions. That conclusion, in the words of the inspectors, was as follows: “The
environmental, chemical and medical samples we have collected provide clear and convincing
evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin.”
The report stopped short of assigning blame for the use of sarin, however the forensic details of
the weapons appeared to implicate the Syrian government in the chemical weapons attack.
Specifically, the report detailed the size and shape of the munitions, and the precise direction from
which the munitions had been fired. These elements foreclosed the possibility that rebel forces
were responsible for the chemical weapons attack, as alleged by the Assad regime, and as
suggested by President Putin of Russia.
Indeed, the inspectors were able to carry out standard ordinance identification and crater analysis
to conclude that two types of rockets had been used. Meanwhile, using angular measurements
from the points where rockets had struck to their points of origin, the inspectors were able to note
that the point of origin was a Syrian military complex. The identification of the rockets, along with
France Review 2016
France
size and sophistication of the launchers, and finally the angular plot analysis, together bolstered the
unofficial assessment that the Syrian government and not the insurgents were responsible for the
chemical attack on Ghouta.
The details of the report also suggested that the attack was more lethal than previously thought.
First, based on the remnants of a warhead recovered by inspectors, it was clear that its capacity of
sarin was quite large at around 56 liters. Second, the low temperature at the time of the attack
meant that the sarin would prevail on the ground levels, even penetrating the lower levels of
buildings where, according to the report, "many people were seeking shelter.”
After a briefing of the United Nations Security Council, which included a presentation of the
report's findings by Dr. Ake Sellstrom -- a leading chemical weapons experts -- United Nations
Secretary Ban Ki-Moon offered the following assessment: “The report makes for chilling reading.
The findings are beyond doubt and beyond the pale. This is a war crime.” Secretary General Ban
also stayed away from assigning blame to any particular party; however, he said that he hoped the
seriousness of the situation would spur a new diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis.
Such a hope was unlikely to be realized. Already Russia was downplaying the report as
unconvincing. Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, suggested that there
remained several unanswered questions and said, “We need not jump to any conclusions.” Russia
later went further and claimed the United Nations finding were "one sided." Russian Deputy
Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said, "We are disappointed, to put it mildly, about the approach
taken by the U.N. secretariat and the U.N. inspectors, who prepared the report selectively and
incompletely." He continued, "Without receiving a full picture of what is happening here, it is
impossible to call the nature of the conclusions reached by the U.N. experts ... anything but
politicized, preconceived and one-sided."
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius responded to Russia's critique of the United Nations
inspectors' report saying, "We are surprised by Russia's attitude because they are calling into
question not the report, but the objectivity of the inspectors... I don't think anybody can call into
question inspectors that have been appointed by the U.N."
The United Kingdom ambassador to the United Nations, Mark Lyall Grant, noted that the evidence
pointed to a sophisticated chemical attack at the hands of the Assad regime. He said, “This was no
cottage-industry use of chemical weapons." Pointing to the variety of munitions and the trajectories
that had been plotted, Grant stated: “In our view, that there is no remaining doubt that it was the
regime that used chemical weapons.”
United States ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, acknowledged that in the
aftermath of Iraq, there was justifiable skepticism. But referring to the scientific evidence
presented the aforementioned expert, Sellstrom, she said that it was important to focus on the
facts. Powers said, “We understand some countries did not accept on faith that the samples of
France Review 2016
France
blood and hair that the United States received from people affected by the Aug. 21 attack
contained sarin. But now Dr. Sellstrom’s samples show the same thing. And it’s very important to
note that the regime possesses sarin, and we have no evidence that the opposition posses sarin.”
The United Nations itself entered the fray to defend the work of its chemical weapons experts who
endured being shot at in Syria, in order to procure copious amounts of samples, and then carry out
extensive analysis in record time. United Nations spokesperson, Martin Nesirky, declared: "The
findings in that report are indisputable. They speak for themselves and this was a thoroughly
objective report on that specific incident." Nesirky also emphasized the fact that there was an
assiduously cross-checked chain of custody of all the environmental and biomedical samples used
in the chemical weapons inquest.
It should be noted that an analysis of the United Nations' chemical inspectors' report by the Arms
Control Association made clear that the findings were fair, factual, and convincing. The Arms
Control Association drew attention to the annexes of the United Nations' chemical inspectors'
report, stating, “The additional details and the perceived objectivity of the inspectors buttress the
assignment of blame to Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government.” As well, it should be noted that a
separate investigation of the use of chemical weapons in Syria was carried out by Human Rights
Watch, which also concluded that the Assad regime -- and not the rebels -- were behind the sarin
attack. Indeed, Human Rights Watch concluded that sarin-filled shells had been fired from a
military base in Syria supervised by Maher Assad -- the brother of the Syrian president.
United Nations Security Council Resolution on Syria
In the aftermath of the release of the report by the United Nations, the United States reminded
Syria -- and indeed, the world -- that it remained under threat of punitive action for its use of
chemical weapons, and was now subject to the provisions of the Russian-American compromise
discussed above. To that end, Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized that his country would
not tolerate any delays in the process of auditing and destroying Syria’s chemical weapons.
Secretary of States Kerry said, “If Assad fails in time to abide by the terms of this framework,
make no mistake, we are all agreed -- and that includes Russia -- that there will be consequences.”
To that end, efforts were underway to move forward with a Security Council resolution against
Syria. United Kingdom Ambassador Grant warned that the Security Council resolution against
Syria was intended to compel Syria to abide by its promise to abandon its chemical weapons
program.
It should be noted that in an address to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2013,
United States President Barack Obama called for a robust United Nations Security Council
resolution on Syria's chemical weapons. President Obama said that a strong resolution was needed
"to verify that the regime is keeping its commitments" to remove or destroy its chemical weapons
arsenal.
France Review 2016
France
As September 2013 came to a close, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security
Council -- the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China -- agreed to a
resolution that would compel Syria to relinquish its chemical weapons.
Included in the draft were two key elements -- (1) a demand that Syria relinquish is stockpile of
chemical weapons, and (2) a demand that Syria facilitate unfettered access to chemical weapons
experts. Presumably to ensure the concurrence of Russia and China, the document did not contain
automatic penalties if Syrian failed to comply with the dictates of the chemical weapons deal and
the associated resolution. Instead, if Syria fails to comply the United Nations Security Council
would reconvene to consider punitive action against that country.
Via Twitter, the United States ambassador to the United Nations said: "The draft UNSCR
establishes that Syria's use of CW is threat to international peace & security & creates a new norm
against the use of CW."
Wasting little time, the full 15-member United Nations Security Council put the draft to a vote
where it won unanimous support for the binding resolution. Following the successful vote in New
York, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon characterized the outcome as "historic," and
declared: "Tonight the international community has delivered." Secretary Ban also called on the
Syrian government to implement the resolution "faithfully and without delay."
United States Secretary of State John Kerry hailed the adoption of the United Nations Security
Council resolution on Syria, saying that the United Nations had illustrated the fact that "diplomacy
can be so powerful that it can peacefully defuse the worst weapons of war." Meanwhile, at home
in the United States, the Obama administration was making it clear that despite its critics on the left
and right, it had in fact compelled Syria to disarm via effective diplomacy backed by a credible
threat of force.
Note:
See "Special Report" above for information related to France's role in the Syrian crisis . Note that
French troops were also embroiled in the fight against Islamist and Tuareg extremists in Mali, as
discussed above, as well as a burgeoning sectarian crisis in the Central African Republic as of the
start of 2014.
Special Summary on Ukrainian Crisis:
Turbulence and turmoil has characterized the landscape in Ukraine. Tensions initially flared in late
France Review 2016
France
2013 in response to Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych's decision not to move forward with a
pending association agreement with the European Union. That decision brought more than
100,000 protesters to the streets to rally against what they saw as Ukraine's movement towards
greater control by Russia. Indeed, the general consensus was that President Yanukovych had bent
to pressure by President Vladimir Putin of Russia to step away from the European Union
Association Agreement and instead embrace a customs union with Russia.
By the start of 2014, another flare of protests ensued in Ukraine in response to legislation passed
by members of parliament loyal to President Yanukovych. The laws at stake were intended to curb
the free expression of political opposition and curtail public protests. The passage of such
legislation raised the ire of Ukrainians, particularly those aligned with the opposition, and alarmed
the West with the United States and European Union worried about the Ukraine's slide into
autocracy under Yanukovych. In a twist of irony, the very laws intended to suppress mass action
actually spurred exactly that end as mass protests attracting tens of thousands of people once again
rocked Ukraine. As January 2014 entered its final week, concessions by President Yanukovych to
include members of the opposition in government yielded no positive results. Instead, the unrest
spread to the eastern part of the country. With the situation deteriorating, the prime minister and
the government resigned, and the Ukrainian parliament repealed the controversial anti-protest laws.
In mid-February 2014, the turmoil re-ignited as police tried to clear the main protest camp.
Ukraine was again thrust into a renewed state of turbulence and turmoil. A truce was forged on
Feb. 19, 2014, but only after more than two dozen people died. That truce collapsed a day later,
effectively returning the capital city of Kiev to a battle zone and leading to an increasing death toll.
Yet another agreement was forged in which the president conceded to many of the demands of the
opposition. But the deal appeared to have come to late to appease an enraged populace. By Feb.
22, 2014, President Yanukovych had fled to the eastern part of the country while his party
abandoned him and joined the opposition to officially impeach him, while his political nemesis former Prime Minister Tymoshenko - was freed from captivity.
The move was a clear message to Moscow that Ukraine would not be controlled by Russia and
that Ukraine instead was looking toward Europe as it charted its future path. Indeed, to the
chagrin of Russia, the new interim president of Ukraine declared the country would pursue closer
ties with the European Union. The winds of change had swept across Ukraine with the "Maidan"
or Independence Square stamped in the history books as "Ground Zero" of Ukraine's 2014
battleground.
But the celebration in Ukraine did not last long. The battleground terrain shifted eastward at the
start of March 2014 when the Russian parliament granted Russian President Putin authorization to
use force in Ukraine, and Russian forces annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Clearly, Putin
and Russia felt entitled to reclaim their foothold in Ukraine, thus recalling alarming memories for
the rest of the world of the Soviet invasion of then-Czechoslovakia in 1968 to subdue the
France Review 2016
France
independence-minded Prague Spring. Adding to the crisis was the perplexing decision by Russian
President Putin to refuse to acknowledge that Russian troops were even in Crimea.
In response to Russia's actions against Ukraine, and particularly in the direction of controlling
Crimea, the G7 countries (G8 minus Russia) pulled out of preparations for the G8 summit set to
take place in Russia and the United States instituted targeted sanctions against Russian officials.
Talks aimed at resolving the crisis yielded no results. Indeed, an East-West conflict was
intensifying as Crimea scheduled a referendum for mid-March 2014 when residents would decide
whether or not to join Russia. A meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and United
States Secretary of State Kerry ended in failure. Because Russia viewed the overthrow of
Yanukovych as illegal, and because the West viewed Crimea's decision to join Russia was in
violation of international law, an impasse was at hand.
The United States and the European Union respectively warned that such a unilateral action would
run counter to international law, and thus they would not recognize the likely ratification of
Crimean unification with Russia. For its part, Ukraine insisted that it would not accept the
fracturing of its territorial integrity.
Meanwhile, the West attempted to condemn Crimea's secession referendum, and issue its support
for Ukraine's sovereignty, by moving forward with a resolution in the United Nations Security
Council. As expected, Russia -- as a veto-wielding permanent member -- vetoed the draft. Every
other Security Council member voted in favor of the measure, with the exception of China, which
abstained from the vote. The inaction at the Security Council was reminiscent of the Cold war era
in which both sides habitually vetoed the other's measures, essentially creating a state of diplomatic
paralysis.
On March 16, 2014, ethnic Russians in Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and
unite with Russia. Crimea then officially requested that the "Republic of Crimea" be admitted as a
new subject to the Russian Federation. On the Russian side of the equation, Russia recognized
Crimea as a sovereign entity. Russian President Putin soon responded by officially annexing
Crimea.
The United States and the European Union imposed personal sanctions on Russian and Crimean
officials. This punitive action was intended as a rebuke against the actions in Crimea; however,
there was no sign that Russia was even slightly daunted by its decision to seize control of a
territory belonging to Ukraine under the established system of international jurisprudence. As
stated above, Russia justified its moves by asserting that the interim post-Yanukovych government
in Ukraine was illegitimate.
Russian ambitions to regain territory lost following the collapse of the Soviet Union soon entered
France Review 2016
France
into the equation. Of note was the fact that in the aftermath of Russia’s annexation of Crimea,
Russian attention was glancing towards other parts of eastern Ukraine. Eruptions of unrest in this
Russian-speaking part of Ukraine were blamed on Russia, and reminiscent of what had transpired
in Crimea. Indeed, Ukraine was accusing Russia of carrying out its Crimea formula by
orchestrating unrest further into Ukrainian territory.
It was to be seen if the landscape in eastern Europe in the spring of 2014 represented the
foundation for a renewed Cold War between the East and West. It was also possible that President
Barack Obama of the United States was correct in dismissing such a notion on the basis of the fact
that Russia was no longer a super power and, instead, a regional power acting as a bully against its
neighbors.
Note that a presidential election was held in Ukraine on May 25, 2014. Petro Poroshenko claimed
victory in Ukraine's presidential contest but turmoil continued to rock Ukraine. Entering the fray
at the start of June 2014, NATO moved to bolster its security presence in eastern Europe as a
deterrent against Russian aggression.
In June and July 2014, Ukrainian forces made some progress in retaking the rebel-held parts of
eastern Ukraine, while the United States intensified its sanctions against Russian companies as a
punitive measure against Russia for failing to de-escalate the conflict.
The landscape in eastern Ukraine took a disturbing turn on July 17, 2014, when a civilian
passenger aircraft traveling from Netherlands to Malaysia went down in eastern Ukraine. All 298
people aboard the Boeing 777 airliner perished when Malaysian Airlines flight 17 crashed in the
rebel-held territory of Donesk close to the Russian border. That event augured a geopolitical
landmine as Ukraine said the Malaysian Airlines flight was shot down and placed the blame on proRussian separatists battling Ukrainian forces. The tragedy of the Malaysian Airlines flight occurred
one day after the Obama administration in the United States unveiled harsh punitive sanctions
against major Russian firms aligned with Russian President Putin.
In the aftermath of the tragic downing of the Malaysian Airlines flight, and because the majority of
the victims with Dutch nationals, Europe's stance against Russia hardened. Accordingly, the West
-- including the United States and the European Union -- intensified its sanctions regime against
Russia.
Meanwhile, in August 2014, Ukrainian forces at first held the momentum in the fight to regain
control over the pro-Russian eastern part of the country, particularly in separatist strongholds of
Donetsk and Luhansk. However, Russian-backed separatists were vigorously defending what they
viewed as their own territory later in the month. By the close of August 2014, NATO said that
Russian forces had violated Ukraine's territory while the Ukrainian president warned that his
country was on the brink of war with Russia.
France Review 2016
France
At the start of September 2014, NATO announced a rapid reaction force as well as military
exercises in eastern Europe. Pressure from NATO and the threat of fresh sanctions by the
European Union appeared to have spurred pro-Russian separatists to go to the negotiating table
with Ukrainian authorities. There, a fragile truce was soon established but sporadically violated as
fighting continued in Donetsk and Luhansk, and as Ukrainian forces fought to hold the port city of
Mariupol.
In September 2014, with the ceasefire still in effect, Ukraine concentrated on the process of trying
to retain its territorial integrity while meeting the needs of the pro-Russian separatists. To that end,
Ukraine unveiled a proposal that would convey "special status" for eastern part of country,
conveying greater autonomy. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian parliament advanced its pro-Western
orientation by ratifying the Association Agreement with European Union (the basis of the uprising
that caused the ousting of Yanukovych in the first place), while Ukrainian President Poroshenko
unveiled a package of reforms aimed at securing membership in the European Union.
By October 2014, Russian President Putin was calling for the withdrawal of Russian troops from
Ukrainian border. However, NATO was warning that there was no sign of Russian troops actually
retreating from the border in any significant fashion; as well, Russian forces remained active within
Ukraine in violation of that country's sovereignty. Ukrainian President Poroshenko viewed the
strong election performance of allied pro-Western parties as a ratification of, and a mandate for, his
security plans for eastern Ukraine. However, that eastern portion of the country was moving
forward with illegal elections of their own, which were rejected by Ukraine and the larger
international community, but which were (unsurprisingly) being backed by Russia.
By November 2014, fighting had erupted in the east, there were reports of a build up of proRussian reinforcements there, and it was fair to say that the fragile ceasefire that had been in place
since September 2014 was on the brink of collapse.
December 2014 saw a prisoner exchange occur between the Ukrainian government and proRussian separatists. As well, Ukrainian President Poroshenko said that he intended to meet with his
Russian, French, and German counterparts in early 2015 for discussions on the restoration of
peace in the eastern part of the country. These actions were regarded as positive steps in the arena
of regional relations. However, Ukraine's decision to revoke its neutral status -- a move that could
potentially facilitate future NATO membership -- was likely to raise the ire of Russia, which has
opposed Ukraine's westward drift from the onset. Ironically, it was Russia's own aggressive
interventions in eastern Ukraine, particularly marked by the annexation of Crimea, that actually
catalyzed Ukraine's haste to move out of Russia's orbit.
At the start of 2015, the Minsk ceasefire agreement was effectively dead as fighting resumed
around Donetsk and as pro-Russian separatists carried out an assault on the strategic port city of
France Review 2016
France
Mariupol, prompting Ukrainian President Poroshenko to warn that his forces would not bend to
pro-Russian rebels and that Ukraine would protect its sovereignty. Fighting had extended to other
areas in Ukraine's east as pro-Russian separatists aggressively sought to consolidate control over
what they have termed "New Russia."
As the month of February 2015 began, there were reports that the Obama administration in the
United States was considering additional support for Ukrainian forces in protecting Ukraine from
the pro-Russian offensive. As well, NATO was considering the establishment of special command
units in eastern Europe to respond rapidly to threats in the region.
Note that on Feb. 12, 2015, a new Minsk ceasefire agreement and a roadmap for peace were
forged. But later in February 2015, peace in eastern Ukraine remained elusive as pro-Russians took
control over the town of Debaltseve and forced Ukrainian forces into retreat. Pro-Russian forces
were reportedly attacking government-held positions in eastern Ukraine -- including the area
around the strategic port of Mariupol -- while Ukraine accused Russia of dispatching more troops
and tanks to the region, specifically in the direction of the town of Novoazovsk on the southern
coast.
Meanwhile, a year after the original Maidan uprising in Kiev ousted former pro-Russian President
Yanukovych from power, Ukraine's second largest city of Kharkiv was struck by a bomb attack as
demonstrators marched in a national unity rally. Despite the existence of the second Minsk
ceasefire agreement, Ukraine was still occasionally mired by war and bloodshed. Europe warned
of further sanctions to come if violations to the truce occurred and, indeed, a fragile peace
appeared to take hold in the region. Juxtaposed against this background came a surprising
admission from Russian President Putin that he had long-standing ambitions to regain Russian
control over Crimea.
New Minsk Ceasefire Agreement -On Feb. 12, 2015, following close to 24 hours of marathon talks, French President François
Hollande announced that an agreement for peace in eastern Ukraine had been forged to end the
fighting and ultimately stabilize the region. The ceasefire was to go into effect at midnight on Feb.
14, 2015 (technically 00.01 on Feb. 15, 2015) and was to be observed by international monitors.
There were provisions for a forthcoming concord that would end the war, and settle difficult issues
such as disarmament, the withdrawal of heavy weaponry, amnesty for all fighters, prisoner
exchanges, and border control. There was also a roadmap for constitutional reforms that would
facilitate the decentralization of separatist-dominated regions of the east. There was also the
matter of self-determination in the flashpoint pro-Russian separatist regions of Donetsk and
Luhansk. As indicated here, under the terms of the concord, the territory in the east would be
returned to Ukraine, but only after the holding of fresh elections in Donetsk and Luhansk under
France Review 2016
France
the aegis of Ukrainian law, and on the basis of the aforementioned constitutional reforms that
would deal with decentralization.
President Hollande of France hailed the truce, saying, “It is a relief for Europe.” German
Chancellor Merkel was more restrained, saying that the ceasefire offered a "glimmer of hope."
President Poroshenko made initially accused Russia of making "unacceptable" demands of his
country but said that Ukraine has stood strong in the face of "ultimatums." Russian President
Putin said in an interview with Russian media, "It wasn't the best night for me, but it's a good
morning."
Across the Atlantic in the United States, the United States government noted the "significant step"
constituted by the agreement, but pointed out that continued fighting in eastern Ukraine was
"inconsistent with the spirit of the accord." In truth, it was to be seen if the new Minsk ceasefire
agreement would end more positively than the last one. At issue was the ongoing fighting in
Debaltseve, where pro-Russian fighters were on the offensive and Ukrainian forces were under
pressure. Would the truce be observed there? The rebel leader of Luhansk, Igor Plotnitskiy, issued
a more promising note, saying, "We hope that thanks to our efforts today, Ukraine will change and
stop firing at civilians, hospitals and socially important facilities." The rebel leader of Donetsk,
Alexander Zakharchenko, said the blame would be placed on Ukraine if the ceasefire collapsed,
and ominously warned that in that event, there would "be no meetings and no new agreements."
On Feb. 16, 2015, the new Minsk ceasefire agreement appeared to be a conceptual notion rather
than a reality as fighting continued in some parts of eastern Ukraine. In truth, the truce did indeed
seem to be in place in significant portions of eastern Ukraine; however, in the flashpoint town of
Debaltseve where intensive fighting had gone on for weeks, there was no sign of peace. In fact,
pro-Russian separatists who were advancing on the town and assaulting Ukrainian forces made
clear that there would be no ceasefire in Debaltseve.
By the third week of February 2015, Debaltseve was under pro-Russian separatist control and
Ukrainian forces were in retreat. As well, Ukrainian authorities said that pro-Russian were
attacking government-held positions in eastern Ukraine -- including the area around the strategic
port of Mariupol. Anatoly Stelmach, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian military, said, "The
number of attacks show the terrorists do not want to completely silence their guns." Ukrainian
authorities then went further, accusing Russia of dispatching more troops and tanks to the region,
specifically in the direction of the town of Novoazovsk on the southern coast. As noted by another
Ukrainian military spokesperson, Andriy Lysenko: "In recent days, despite the Minsk (ceasefire)
agreement, military equipment and ammunition have been sighted crossing from Russia into
Ukraine." Of note was the movement of 20 Russian tanks, 10 missile systems, and deployment of
troops into the eastern Ukrainian conflict zone. These moves appeared to hint towards a new
battlefront in the war, irrespective of the fact that a new ceasefire agreement was supposedly in
place.
France Review 2016
France
Meanwhile, a year after the original Maidan uprising in Kiev ousted former pro-Russian President
Yanukovych from power, the one-year anniversary was marked by a somber remembrance in the
capital of the lives and territory lost as Ukraine has sought to hold onto its sovereignty in the face
of pro-Russian aggression and imperialistic expansion.
But on Ukraine's second largest city of Kharkiv, the situation took a dark turn as citizens marked
the occasion. On Feb. 22, 2015, a bomb exploded at a rally for national unity near the city's
Palace of Sport, killing two people and injuring 10 more. Four individuals with alleged ties to
Russia were detained in connection with the attack. The reality was that Ukraine was still being
plagued by conflict despite the latest Minsk ceasefire agreement. Ukrainian President Poroshenko
characterized the attack as "a bold attempt to expand the territory of terrorism" and vowed that
justice would be served.
As February 2015 came to a close, pro-Russian separatists attempted to win the public relations
debate over who was responsible for the latest Minsk ceasefire not taking hold, as they invited
journalists to witness the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the eastern Ukrainian front line.
Ukrainian authorities dismissed the move, saying that the gesture was intended to obfuscate the
reality that the pro-Russian were simply preparing for a fresh offensive.
Nevertheless, the fact of the matter was that in eastern Ukraine at the end of February 2015 was
marked by increasing calm. Of course, it was quite possible that pro-Russians were willing to ease
up on the fighting now that the railway hub of Debaltseve was under their control. Regardless of
the actual cause for the slowing activity in the battlefield, it was to be seen if this sense of calm
would prove sustainable.
In the third week of March 2015, amidst the ongoing -- but fragile -- ceeasefire agreement, fighting
was reported in Donetsk. Of concern was the Spartak district of the city which has seen no
cessation of hostilities since the time of the announcement of the new Minsk ceasefire deal. Still,
the rest of the region was enjoying some calm, albeit of an uneasy variety.
Western leaders have said that more resources would be needed for monitors to oversee the truce,
while warning of further sanctions, should Russian-backed separatists advance further into
Ukrainian territory.
Indeed, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has warned that any significant violation of the new -but fragile -- ceasefire in eastern Ukraine would spur Europe to move forward with further
sanctions against Russia for its support of pro-Russian separatists. She said, "So far we've got a
fragile ceasefire which needs to be stabilized. But if the Minsk agreement is seriously violated,
European leaders and the (European) Commission stand ready to prepare and impose further
sanctions."
France Review 2016
France
Then, in the last week of March 2015, leaders of European Union countries said that they intended
to link the lifting of economic sanctions on Russia with the full implementation of a Ukraine
ceasefire agreement. According to the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, "The
duration of economic sanctions will be clearly linked to the full implementation of the Minsk
agreement. We have to maintain our sanctions until the Minsk agreement is fully implemented."
This stance made clear that while the European Union was not officially extending its sanctions
regime, which was due to expire in mid-2015, without clear benchmarks being met as regards the
implementation of a sustainable peace in eastern Ukraine, sanctions would, in fact, be continued.
Meanwhile, the United Kingdom announced it would deploy military forces to Ukraine to help train
that country's military in the fight against Russian-backed rebels aiming to establish a "new Russia."
In the first part of April 2015, there was a flare of violence in eastern Ukraine. In the aftermath of
the death of one Ukrainian soldier and the wounding of several others, Ukraine accused Russianbacked separatists of using weapons, such as heavy weapons and artillery, that were banned under
the terms of the Minsk ceasefire agreement. As stated by a Ukrainian military spokesperson,
Oleksandr Motuzyanyk, "The rebels have not stopped firing at Ukrainian positions ... Over the
past day, the enemy has used weapons banned under the Minsk agreements." On the other side of
the equation, Russian-backed separatists blamed Ukrainian attacks on the injuring of two
journalists close to the flashpoint city of Donetsk.
As the spike in violence ensued in eastern Ukraine, foreign ministers from Ukraine, Russia, France,
and Germany held talks and agreed to move forward with a plan to remove weaponry from the
frontlines of the conflict. The list of items targeted for withdrawal included heavy caliber weapons,
mortars, tanks, and armored vehicles.
Special Report on Terror Attack in Paris; Connection to Global Terrorism:
Islamist extremists carry out barabaric terrorist attacks on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo
and at Jewish supermarket; millions in France participate in unity rally as world faces global
security threat -Jan. 7, 2015, was marked by an appalling assault on democratic freedom as Islamist extremists
carried out a terrorist attack on the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, in the French capital
city of Paris.
The Islamist terrorists were disguised in masks and clutching assault rifles (quite possibly
Kalashnikovs) as they invaded the offices of the Charlie Hebdo magazine in the heart of Paris.
The terrorists then proceded to open fire on journalists during their daily editorial meeting,
France Review 2016
France
utimately killing 12 people and critically wounding four others before fleeing the scene of the
crime. Among the dead were some of the magazine's cartoonists, the editor, an economist and two
police officers- ironically one of which was reported to be Muslim.
At first there were reports of two terrorists being responsible; however, French authorities later
indicated that there were might be three suspects at large. As noted above, the assailants escaped
in a vehicle following their killing spree. They subsequently abandoned that car at Rue de Meaux
in northern Paris where they hijacked a second car. A manhunt was underway in France to
apprehend the killers, whose murderous work was partially recorded by the cameras of witnesses
in the area.
Because Charlie Hebdo was a satirical publication, using acerbic and mocking humor in its writings,
including challenges to all religions, the deduction was that the attack on its editorial staff was likely
due to socio-political grievances. The fact that the terrorist gunmen were heard shouting "We have
killed Charlie Hebdo! We have avenged the Prophet [Mohammed]!" only solidified that deduction.
This type of virulent reaction from Islamic extremists regarding satirical depictions of the Muslim
religion was reminiscent of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy in Denmark in
2005. At that time, the Danish newspaper published a series of editorial cartoons, most of which
depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, sometimes in an unflattering manner. This action
sparked protests across the world and threats to the safety of the editorial staff of the newspaper.
For its part, Jyllands-Posten in 2005, much like Charlie Hebdo in more recent years having been
firebombed in 2011, have argued that, as journalistic enterprises, they are exercising their
democratic freedom of expression, and contributing to the debate over extremist Islam and selfcensorship. Clearly, the terror attack in Paris ten years later on the journalistic staff at Charlie
Hebdo showed that some Islamists were willing to use murderous means to silence those whose
work is deemed by extremist Muslims to be offensive.
Of note was the fact that the attack on a satirical publication shocked not only France, but also the
civilized world, which embraces the notion of freedom of expression even when the subject matter
may be provocative, difficult, controversial, and offensive. In France, particularly, satire has been
a central element of social criticism and journalism for centuries. Indeed, Marie-Antoinette herself
was satirized in highly criticial form in French scandal sheets in the period prior to the French
Revolution.
At home in France on Jan. 7, 2015, this event at the office of Charlie Hebdo in Paris was the first
major terrorist attack since the mid-1990s when the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
launched a series of attacks, the most well-known of which was the 1995 bombing of a commuter
train that left eight people dead and another and 150 injured. That being said, events at the close
of 2014 augured negative developments on the French national security scene to come.
France Review 2016
France
In December 2014, France was plagued by a spate of attacks by Jihadist Islamist extremists. In
response, French authorities deployed its armed forces and increased police patrols to hotspot areas
across the country. The attacks in Dijon, Tours, and Nantes left at least one person clinically dead
and more than 20 others injured.
While these incidents were not coordinated, they were at least ideologically linked -- seemingly
inspired by the terror group, Islamic State, which has urged its Jihadist sympathizers to act as "lone
wolves" and attack Westerners. Rather than plan elaborate terror events, Islamic State called on
Muslims with allied views to use basic tools at their disposal to carry out low grade attacks. To this
end, one attack in Dijon simply involved a man driving his car into a group of pedestrians while
screaming "God is Great" in Arabic. More than a dozen people were injured in that case. Another
incident at a Christmas market in Nantes involved a man targeting a stall with his van; that attack
seriously wounded several people and tragically left one person clinically dead. A third incident
involved a stabbing attack on a group of police officers but ended with the death of the assailant. In
Cannes, a possible attack may have been averted when police apprehended a man armed with two
shotguns and a knife at a local market.
At the time, Prime Minister Manuel Valls acknowledged the "concerns" of the French citzenry as
he announced the intensified security measures, but urged people to carry on with their lives. He
said, "We do not minimize these acts. The best response is to continue to live peacefully with the
necessary vigilance of course." Meanwhile, President Francois Hollande convened an emergency
cabinet meeting.
Now, at the start of 2015, it was apparent that those attacks were only of a taste of the horror to
come. Moreover, whereas the incidents in 2014 appeared to be random attacks carried out by
"lone wolf" Muslim extremist actors sympathetic to Islamic Jihadist ideals, it was clear that the
terror attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine was a well-orchestrated and sophisticated operation
bearing the hallmarks of a more established terror network. Whether those indications turned out to
be accurate was yet to be seen.
President Francois Hollande wasted little time in characterizing the violence in Paris not only as a
terrorist attack, but also one "of exceptional barbarity." He said, "An act of indescribable barbarity
has just been committed today in Paris. Measures have been taken to find those responsible, they
will be hunted for as long as it takes to catch them and bring them to justice." Meanwhile, French
Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said that Paris had been placed on the highest alert.
Global leaders entered the fray to express their vociferous responses to the terror attack in Paris.
United States President Barack Obama expressed his strenuous condemnation of the "horrific
shooting" and reviled the terrorists as being afraid of democratic freedom as he said: "The fact that
this was an attack on journalists, an attack on our free press, also underscores the degree to which
these terrorists fear freedom of speech and freedom of the press." The United States president also
France Review 2016
France
promised to provide France with any assistance needed "to help bring these terrorists to justice."
United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron declared: "The murders in Paris are sickening.
We stand with the French people in the fight against terror and defending the freedom of the
press." German Chancellor Angela Merkel said: "This abominable act is not only an attack on the
lives of French citizens... It is also an attack on freedom of speech and the press, core elements of
our free democratic culture." United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said: "It was a
horrendous, unjustifiable and cold-blooded crime. It was also a direct assault on a cornerstone of
democracy, on the media and on freedom of expression."
For its part, despite losing some of its own journalists to this appalling act of terrorism, the Charlie
Hebdo publication resumed operations, with its website back online in the aftermath of the attack
and dislaying the image of "Je suis Charlie" ("I am Charlie) on a black banner -- a statement
referencing a hashtag that is trending across the social media outlet, Twitter, in solidarity with the
victims of this attack on democratic freedom.
Meanwhile, the horror in Paris was inspiring at least one well-known celebrity writer to enter the
equation and express his thoughts on freedom of expression. The writer, Salman Rushdie, whose
1988 book "Satanic Verses" led to accusations by conservative Muslims of blasphemy and earned
him a fatwa on his life, had some experience with the matter. Rushdie issued a blistering
excoriation of extremist religious zealotry during an interview with the United Kingdom-based The
Guardian. Rushdie said: “I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire,
which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity." He
continued, "Religion, a medieval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry
becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation
in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today." He added, "Respect for
religion has become a code phrase meaning fear of religion... Religions, like all other ideas, deserve
criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.”
French authorities were soon indicating that they had the names of the assailants. They were
identified as French nationals -- two brothers, Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi of Algerian
ancestry. It should be noted that a third suspect, Hamyd Mourad, was also identified. Mourad
quickly surrendered to French authorities once his name was made public. He was subsequently
released without charges.
Saïd Kouachi reportedly spent severalmonths at an al-Qaida Arabian Peninsula terrorist training
camp in Yemen. Of note was the fact that one of the Kouachi brothers had told witnesses outside
the Charlie Hebdo office prior to their getaway that they were doing the work of al-Qaida in the
Arabian Peninsula. His brother, Cherif Kouachi, was arrested in 2005 due to his criminal
associations with a terrorist enterprise, convicted and ultimately sentenced to prison for 18
months. He did not actually serve that sentence, being released instead due to the time he spent in
pre-trial detention.
France Review 2016
France
These revelations indicated that the Kouachi brothers were actually on the radar of terrorism
watchers. Indeed, they had been placed on the United States' Terrorist Identities Datamart
Environment (TIDE) system —- a classified database of suspects with possible terror ties.
Moreover, they were deemed to be such a concern that they had been added to the even more
restrictive "no fly" list, banning them from boarding commercial aircraft into and out of the United
States. The fact that both Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi were identified as terror threats by
United States counter-terrorism authorities raised questions as to why the two brothers were free
and able to carry out an act of terrorism in France.
A manhunt was underway in the days following the attack at the office of Charlie Hebdo to find
the Kouachi brothers. Media reports indicated that the two men who had fled in a vehicle later
stole a car from a man while on the run, and robbed convenience stores during their attempt to
escape authorities in pursuit. The hunt for the Kouachi went on for two days. There were reports
of an individual in black garb killing a female police officer in this period. At the time, it was not
known if the Kouachi brothers were involved, or if there was another connection to the Charlie
Hebdo terror attack.
Chaos erupted once again on Jan. 9, 2015, when the brothers were located at a printing plant to the
north of Paris where they had taken a hostage. Simultaneous with this development was the news
that another assailant had taken shoppers at a Jewish kosher supermarket in eastern Paris hostage.
French police gathered at both scenes, which were respectively evolving into dangerous stand-offs.
The print shop scenario ended in what French authorities called a "satisfactory" manner with the
lone hostage being released and the Kouachi brothers being killed as they exited the print shop and
opened fire on police, injuring two, and ultimately were shot to death by police themselves.
According to French authorities, the Kouachi brothers told hostage negotiators that they intended
to “die as martyrs.”
The kosher shop scenario ended with heartbreak as at least four shoppers were shot to death by
the assailant, who was later indentified as Amedy Coulibaly -- as associate of the Kouachi brothers
who declared himself to be a follower of the notorious terror group, Islamic State. He was also
identified as the person responsible for the murder of the French police officer mentioned above,
and told hostage negotiators that his actions had been coordinated with the Kouachi brothers.
During surveillance on the kosher shop, police viewed Coulibaly praying and worried that he was
anticipating a dire fate for the hostages. As such, they made the difficult decision to storm the
shop. French police were able to kill the terrorist and fifteen hostages were released safely after
that operation.
The drama continued with the news that a fourth suspect -- Hayat Boumeddiene, the common law
wife of Coulibaly -- was at large. Boumeddiene was being described as Coulibaly's accomplice and
France Review 2016
France
part of an activated terror cell; she was believed to have escaped to Syria. A global alert went out
for Boumeddiene, making her quite likely the most wanted woman in the world at the start of
2015. Turkey's foreign ministry soon announced that Boumedienne arrived in the Spanish capital
city of Madrid on Jan. 2, 2015, and entered Syria on Jan. 8, 2015, via Turkey.
For his part, French President Francois Hollande described the events that had rocked Paris at the
start of 2015 as "a tragedy for the nation." He thanked French security forces for their "bravery"
and "efficiency," but warned that the country faced the real threat of terrorism. He urged people to
be vigilant while closing ranks in national unity as he said, "We have to be vigilant. I also ask you
to be united -- it's our best weapon. We must be implacable towards racism," adding that the
kosher supermarket attack was an "appalling anti-Semitic act."
At the practical level, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls admitted that there had been a "clear
failing" of French intelligence services, saying, "If 17 people die, this means mistakes have been
made." He also announced that up to 10,000 security forces would be deployed to "sensitive"
locations across the country as a safety measure.
Meanwhile, Paris on Jan. 11, 2015, was a venue of solidarity as world leaders joined the French
leadership and citizenry to participate in a mass rally of about 3.7 million people honoring the dead,
while celebrating Western values of democratic liberty and freedom. French President Francois
Hollande declared: "Paris is the capital of the world today."
Editor's Note:
The Editorial Department of CountryWatch stands in solidarity with the people of France. The
Editorial Department of CountryWatch respects and embraces the democratic exercise of freedom
of expression.
Special Report:
P5+1 multilateral negotiations result in historic framework deal on Iran's nuclear program
The international community has been focused on aggressive multilateral negotiations in
Switzerland between Iran and the P5+1 countries of the United States, the United Kingdom,
France, Germany, Russia, and China, aimed at arriving at a landmark nuclear deal. At issue was
the goal of arriving at an accord that would regulate Iran's nuclear program, its stockpile of
enriched uranium, and curtail Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb. For Iran, the objectives
were twofold. First, Iran hoped to prove that its nuclear development was for peaceful purposes
and not aimed at weaponization, as charged by the West. Second, Iran was keen to end a painful
France Review 2016
France
international sanctions regime that has badly damaged Iran's economy.
Going back to January 2014, an interim Iranian nuclear deal went into force. Under the terms of
that interim agreement, Iran began the process of diluting its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20
percent, with all such uranium expected to be eliminated within a six-month period. There were
also provisions for inspections at the Arak heavy water reactor and the Fordo uranium enrichment
site close to Qom. While the interim deal constituted only a first step in the diplomatic track, it was
certainly a significant step in that process aimed at establishing an enduring accord. Indeed, it
represented a sea change in Iran's relationship with the United States, which was actively evolving
from one marked by hostility to one of engagement. Now, with a final nuclear deal at stake, it was
to be seen if that engagement would be ultimately deemed productive.
At the end of March 2015, the P5+1 multilateral talks with Iran were set to end, with all eyes on a
framework for a long-term agreement. But the negotiations were mired by various sticking points,
prompting the parties to extend the negotiating process.
Finally, on April 2, 2015, after marathon talks in Switzerland, the P5+1 countries and Iran
announced that the hard work of negotiations and diplomacy had yielded results, and that a
framework agreement on Iran's nuclear program had been reached. The agreement presaged a
long-term deal, which would have to be made by the final "hard" deadline on June 30, 2015. The
prevailing question continued to dominate: Can a final accord on Iran's nuclear program be
forged? The answer to that question remained the same at the time of writing: It was yet to be
determined if the nuclear negotiations would actually end in a viable and enduring deal; however,
the successful framework agreement reached on April 2, 2015, marked a massive breakthrough in
the realm of international diplomacy for the purpose of global security.
Political resistance from hardliners in the United States Congress and from Iran itself could upend
the deal. Nevertheless, a new round of nuclear negotiations was set to commence later in April
2015.
Special Report on Terror Attacks in Paris
Nov. 13, 2015, was marked by an appalling assault on democratic freedom as France's capital city
was rocked by a spate of terrorist attacks. The notorious terror enclave Islamic State issued a claim
of responsibility. Suicide bombers and gunmen carried out simultaneous assaults on popular
President Francois Hollande was attending a football match being played between the French and
German teams at the Stade de France when at least two explosions ensued close to the facility.
France Review 2016
France
While he was safely evacuated from the venue, at least four people died in what was believed to be
suicide bombings. At a Cambodian restaurant called Le Petit Cambouge, a gun attack left several
people dead. Gun assaults also ensued at Belle Equipe, La Casa Nostra, and Le Carillon. The
worst attack took place at the Bataclan concert venue where Eagles of Death concert-goers were
held hostage and killed at gunpoint. The death toll at that venue alone numbered at least 100
victims. Seven assailants were also reported to have died, with reports of an eighth assailant at
large and en route to Belgium, as discussed below.
On Nov. 14, 2015, as information related to the attacks began to come in, French authorities said
that bloodshed was carried out by three terror teams. As stated by French Prosecutor Francois
Molins: "We can say at this stage of the investigation there were probably three coordinated teams
of terrorists behind this barbaric act." One team of three suicide bombers attempted to the Stade
de France in the northern suburbs of Paris. That attempt was unsuccessful as a security guard saw
the suicide vest on at least one of the suicide bombers as he tried to enter the stadium; that
assailant then detonated the explosives strapped to his body. The second explosion ensued soon
after. A second team of terrorists was responsible for the cafe, bar, and restaurant shootings.
Their operation entailed shooting at customers at these venues, and culminated when one member
of this team sat at a table in a restaurant and detonated the explosives strapped to his body when a
waitress approached to take his order. The third team of terrorists carried out the Bataclan
massacre.
Prosecutor Molins indicated that the terrorists used Kalashnikov assault rifles and wore explosive
vests typically used in suicide bombings. He added that at least one of the vehicles used by the
terrorists bore a Belgian license plate and thus indicated an international dimension to the plot.
That international dimension was bolstered by the identification of the aforementioned surviving
eighth assailant -- Belgian-born Salah Abdeslam -- who was generating an international manhunt.
Meanwhile, the identities of the seven deceased terrorists were slowly coming to light. The first
deceased terrorist to be identified was a French national, Ismail Omar Mostefai, who had a
criminal history and who had been flagged by French intelligence for some Islamist extremist
connections. Another four terrorists were named to be Bilal Hadfi, Samy Amimour, Brahim
Abdeslam (the brother of Salah Abdeslam who was on the run as discussed here), and Ahmad alMohammad, who was believed to be carrying a Syrian passport. Greek authorities said belonged
to a Syrian migrant who entered Europe at the island of Leros. It should be noted, though, that
the passport at stake was later identified as a falsified document, and there were no final
conclusions as to whether or not the individual was simply posing as a migrant to enter Europe.
There were another two other terrorists who died during the attacks but remained unidentified at
the time of writing.
The mastermind of the attack was identified as Belgian-born Islamist extremist, Abdel-Hamid
Abu Oud, who was sentenced in in absentia to 20 years in prison for urging young people to join
France Review 2016
France
Islamic State was also implicated in the plot. Abu Oud had ties to the top echelon of Islamic State,
including Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; he lived in the Molenbeek suburb of
Brussels, which was known to be a breeding ground for nefarious and extremist Islamist terrorists.
Since the rise of the terror enclave, Islamic State, France has felt the effects of terrorism within its
own borders. In December 2014, France was plagued by a spate of attacks by Jihadist Islamist
extremists. In response, French authorities deployed its armed forces and increased police patrols
to hotspot areas across the country. The attacks in Dijon, Tours, and Nantes left at least one
person clinically dead and more than 20 others injured. While these incidents were not
coordinated, they were at least ideologically linked -- seemingly inspired by the terror group,
Islamic State, which has urged its Jihadist sympathizers to act as "lone wolves" and attack
Westerners. Then, in January 2015, Islamists expressly aligned with the terror groups, al-Qaida
and Islamic State, killed a cadres of cartoonists at the Paris office of the satirical magazine, Charlie
Hebdo, and other victims at a Jewish Kosher supermarket in a Paris suburb. Those attacks
appeared to be more carefully orchestrated and aimed at seeking revenge against satirists daring to
exercise democratic free speech to question militant Islam. Now, less that a year later in
November 2015, Paris was again being struck by terrorism once again.
There certainly was a sense that France was entering a dark chapter and that this plague of
terrorism was unprecedented. France was no stranger to terror, having experienced no shortage of
attacks over the decades, dating back to the attempted assassination of President Charles de Gaulle
during the time of the Algerian War, and including attacks by Palestinian militants in the 1970s,
and attacks on Jewish synagogues and restaurants in the 1980s. More recently, the 1995 bombing
of a commuter train took place at the hands of the Algerian Armed Islamic Group. That being
said, the December 2014 attacks (discussed above) augured negative developments on the French
national security scene to come, with the 2015 attacks marking a new era of turmoil on the French
landscape. Whereas the Charlie Hebdo attacks inspired a sense of defiance in the French people as
they vowed to protect their country's values of liberty and democracy, the mood after the
November 2015 Paris attacks was a mix of unmitigated shock and societal trauma.
For his part, President Francois Hollande declared a national state of emergency, closed the
country's borders, and deployed thousands of military personnel across the city. Under the aegis
of the security measures, French authorities would be able to impose curfews and restrictions on
the movement of people. The French leader also urged the residents of Paris to stay indoors and
shelter in place. Later, in a national address ahead of an emergency cabinet meeting, President
Hollande asserted "this is a horror" and characterized the attacks as "an abomination and a
barbaric act." While he stopped short of naming a terror group as being responsible, the French
leader issued the following warning: "We know where these attacks come from. There are indeed
good reasons to be afraid."
The day after the terror attacks, it was becoming increasingly clear that the Paris attacks were the
France Review 2016
France
work of Islamist militants. There were certainly indications pointing in the direction of Islamist
Jihadist terrorism. First, some witnesses in Paris reported to the international media that some
assailants were heard screaming "Allah Akbar!" which would certainly be consistent with the work
of Jihadist terrorists ahead of an act of violence. Second, other witnesses claimed at least one
gunman said that the attacks were being carried out in retaliation for France's role in Syria. Third,
claims were being made by supporters of the Islamic State terrorist group via the social media
outlet, Twitter, indicating that entity may have been behind the carnage. One relevant tweet read
as follows: "The State of the caliphate hit the house of the cross." Fourth, on Nov. 14, 2015,
Islamic State expressly claimed responsibility for what could only be understood as its latest plague
of barbarism and brutality -- this one being on French soil.
In response to Islamic State's claim of responsibility, French President Hollande described the
attacks in Paris as "an act of war" and vowed a merciless response by France. He declared: "So
France will be merciless in its response to the Islamic State militants." He warned that France
would "use all means within the law.. on every battleground here and abroad together with our
allies." To that end, France wasted no time intensifying its strikes on Syria, starting with targets on
the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa. These initial strikes were carried out in cooperation with
United States forces.
In mid-November 2015, French authorities released the photograph of a Belgian-born French
national considered to be a suspect in the Paris attacks. French authorities said that Salah
Abdeslam rented a vehicle used in the attack at the Bataclan concert venue. Abdeslam was
actually stopped at the Belgian border with two other individuals, but was released in what could
only be understood as a missed opportunity. It was only after that incident that he was flagged by
French authorities in connection with the terror attacks. Salah Abdeslam could be viewed in
November 2015 as the most wanted man in the world. The evolving theory was that he was
supposed to commit a suicide attack but instead fled the scene. As a result, not only was he
wanted by international security authorities for his active role in the terror attacks in Paris, but also
by Islamic State, which was likely displeased that he failed to detonate his suicide belt. By Nov.
22, 2015, there were fears in Belgium that Abdeslam might seek to finally use that suicide belt; as a
result, Belgian authorities placed the country's capital on lockdown and were carrying out antiterrorism raids.
It should be noted that in mid-November 2015, a second vehicle, believed to be used in the
attacks on restaurants, bars, and cafes, was found in Montreiul; inside the vehicle, which was
rented in Belgium, was a cache of weapons.
These incidents opened up an arena of discussion. Specifically, as already noted above, there
was an international trajectory being revealed, with Belgian becoming a key consideration. In this
regard, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve noted that the Paris attacks had been carried
out "by a group of individuals based in Belgium" with "accomplices in France." French Prime
France Review 2016
France
Minister Manuel Valls fleshed out the plot further, noting that the terror attacks in Paris was likely
organized in Syria. In an interview with Agence France Presse, Prime Minister Valls also suggested
that the planning was more wide-ranging than simply the Paris attacks on Nov. 13, 2015. He
explained, "We know that operations were being prepared and are still being prepared, not only
against France but other European countries too." President Hollande went further, saying of the
attacks: They “were decided and planned in Syria, prepared and organized in Belgium, and
perpetrated on our soil, with French complicity."
Unlike the December 2014 attacks in France attributed to "lone wolves" inspired by Islamic State,
these November 2015 attacks appeared to have been meticulously planned and carried out by welltrained operatives. Of note was the fact that Western intelligence did not seem to have intercepted
any indications of the plot. To that end, the working theory was that Islamic State was evading
conventional intercept methods used by the United States, for example, by staying away from
phone and online use; instead, the terror network was using alternative methods to pass on
information.
The multi-sited rampage of terror in Paris was reminiscent of the horrifying attacks in India in
2008. In that case, Islamist militants from Pakistan waged a series of simultaneous terror attacks
in the heart of India's commercial capital of Mumbai (Bombay) killing 175 people. In the case of
these Paris attacks in November 2015, there was a similar style of successive acts of mass violence
with ordinary citizens going about their lives as the targets.
The Mumbai-style terror attacks in Paris were the result of a well-orchestrated and sophisticated
operation bearing the hallmarks of an established terror network. As discussed here, all eyes were
on the Islamist terror entity, Islamic State, which had both expressly claimed responsibility and
enthusiastically applauded the appalling bloodshed.
It should be noted that less than two weeks prior to the Paris attacks, Islamic State had claimed
responsibility for the downing of a Russian Metrojet airliner traveling from the Egyptian city of
Sharm-el-Sheikh, killing more than 200 people on board. Moreover, only days prior to the Paris
attacks, Islamic State claimed responsible for double bombings in a Shi'a district of the Lebanese
city of Beirut, killing more than 40 people. The Paris attacks, therefore, constituted the third arm
of a terrorist trifecta for Islamic State, presumably part of its effort to demonstrate its relevance
and resilience even as it was being subject to strikes from various international actors.
Indeed, the terror enclave was under pressure from a United States-led international coalition, as
well as a bombing campaign by Russia. Of note was the fact that in the second week of
November 2015 Islamic State lost control of Sinjar in Iraq as a result of a fierce offensive by
Kurdish peshmerga fighters backed by United States air power. In the same period, the United
States Pentagon reported that it had targeted the "face" of Islamic State in a drone strike -- the
notorious terrorist "Jihadi John" who was shown in barbaric videotaped footage with international
France Review 2016
France
hostages who were executed via decapitation. The Pentagon indicated that the drone strike was
very likely successful, thus inflicting a symbolic blow against the terror group. Meanwhile, they
were losing control in Aleppo in Syria.
While these losses were recent, the downward trajectory for Islamic State had been occurring for
several months. As such, the terror enclave's evolving imperative might be to show that it still has
power and influence. No longer able to expand its territorial advances, Islamic State may be
transforming its efforts. Rather than concentrating on building and expanding its so-called
Caliphate, Islamic State could be refocusing its ambitions in the direction of international
Jihadism. Should this working theory gain support , it would suggest an acute threat to global
security.
With such a possibility ahead, world leaders condemned the bloodshed in Paris expressed support
for France and the French people. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon denounced
"the despicable terrorist attacks" in Paris while the United Nations Security Council likewise
condemned "the barbaric and cowardly terrorist attacks" and emphasized the imperative to bring
the perpetrators of "these terrorist acts to justice." German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued a
statement noting that her thoughts were with the victims of the terrorist attack, and in a speech the
day after the attacks, promised to stand by France in the fight against terrorism. United Kingdom
Prime Minister David Cameron expressed shock over the Paris attacks and said via the social
media outlet, Twitter, "Our thoughts and prayers are with the French people. We will do whatever
we can to help."
United States President Barack Obama issued the following statement: "This is an attack not just
on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and
the universal values that we share. We stand prepared and ready to provide whatever assistance
that the government and the people of France need to respond. France is our oldest ally. The
French people have stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States time and again. And we
want to be very clear that we stand together with them in the fight against terrorism and extremism.
Paris itself represents the timeless values of human progress. Those who think that they can
terrorize the people of France or the values that they stand for are wrong. The American people
draw strength from the French people’s commitment to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness."
United States Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to France to stand in solidarity with his
"America's oldest friend," declaring in his remarks, "Tonight we are all Parisians." He eviscerated
the terrorists of the Islamic State network, calling them "psychopathic monsters."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, "Israel is standing shoulder to shoulder with
French President Hollande and the French people in our joint war against terror." Iranian President
Hassan Rouhani cast the Paris attacks as a "crime against humanity." China's government
condemned the attacks and pledged its commitment to standing with France in the fight to combat
France Review 2016
France
terrorism. President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirate dispatched
a telegram to French President Hollande promising to do "what it takes to face terrorism and
eliminate it."
In a rare convergence with the West -- which treats Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad as terrorist
groups -- all three entities condemned the Paris attacks. Hezbollah leader, Sheikh Hassan
Nasrallah, characterized the attacks as "barbaric" and predicted that “the 'Islamic State' will not last
long." Nasrallah said that the attacks in Paris and in Beirut (also attributed to Islamic State) would
only strengthen the resolve of Hezbollah against Islamic State. Hamas official, Bassem Na'eem,
also condemned the attacks in Paris, stating in a missive, "We pay our deep condolences to the
families of the victims and we wish France safety and security." Nafez Azzam from Islamic Jihad
official, declared, "I don’t think Islam is allowing this haphazard and arbitrary killing." These
responses indicated that even within Islamist extremist ranks, there remained a bizarre sense of
ethics. Indeed, all three groups had their own ideological goals and were willing to use violence at
times to achieve those goals. Yet they apparently drew the line at barbaric murder, and at the
expressed targeting of civilians -- the type of terror tactics favored by Islamic State. A more
cynical interpretation was that these groups were eager to rebrand their own efforts politically and
draw a clear distinction between themselves and brutal terrorist groups.
At home in France, massive anti-terrorism raids were going on across the country -- in the Paris
suburb of Bobigny, as well as the cities of Grenoble, Toulouse, Lyon, Strasbourg, and others -with several persons being arrested. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls explained that authorities
were using the emergency measures to probe possible terrorist connections as he said, "We are
making use of the legal framework of the state of emergency to question people who are part of
the radical jihadist movement... and all those who advocate hate of the republic."
Parallel raids and arrests were taking place in Belgium, with a focus on the Brussels suburb of
Molenbeek, which was known to be a hotbed of Islamist extremism and JIhadism.
On Nov. 18, 2015, more than 100 French commandos carried out a pre-dawn raid on an
apartment building in the Paris suburb of Saint-Deny. A seven hour siege ensued and resulted in
the deaths of two terrorists and a police dog, while at least three other terrorists were taken into
custody. The target of the raid was the orchestrator of the Paris attacks -- Abdel-Hamid Abu
Oud -- although it was not immediately known if he was among either the dead or those detained;
indeed, it was not confirmed that he was even at the apartment. The reason for the confusion was
due to the fact that one terrorist detonated explosives at the scene, killing himself and a female
cohort. Later, French authorities noted that Abu Oud was one of the persons who died during the
police raid.
French prosecutors said that the discovery of a discarded mobile phone contributed to the
discovery of the safe house where this cell of terrorists were located. The prosecutors
France Review 2016
France
subsequently indicated that the cell located at the safe house may have been planning to carry out
attacks in the La Defense business district.
French authorities made clear that Jawad Bendaoud -- the person who provided the safe house to
the terrorists -- was complicit with the Paris attacks. As such, the owner of the apartment was
being investigated for "criminal conspiracy in connection with a terrorist enterprise." As stated by
French Prosecutor Francois Molins, "Jawad Bendaoud himself welcomed the terrorists on Nov. 17
towards 22.45 pm. He could not have been in any doubt ... that he was taking part in a terrorist
organization."
Overall, the discoveries regarding the safe house, another cell of terrorists, another terror plot in
the financial district, as well as the use of yet another explosives-laden vest or belt used in suicide
attacks, made it clear that a spiderweb of terrorism had spread across Paris. As a result, anxieties
about security threats were raised even further.
By Nov. 22, 2015, French police were apparently seeking an individual traveling with a group of
Syrian refugees. The individual landed on the Greek island of Leros and was wanted in connection
with the Paris bombings. The man was believed to be the third suicide bomber to attack the Stade
de France. As November 2015 entered its fourth week, the fugitive Paris terrorist, Abdelslam,
remained on the run and successfully evading capture. Some hint of his activities may have come
to light with the discovery of an explosives belt in a dumpster to the south of Paris. Investigators
were thus speculating that it may have been belonged to Abdeslam, who discarded it before fleeing
the scene. In the same period of late November 2015, an arrest warrant was also issued in
Belgium for a man identified as Mohamed Abrini in connection with the Paris attacks. Authorities
said that Abrini was seen driving a vehicle used in the attacks and should thus be regarded as
"dangerous and probably armed."
In the aftermath of the Paris terror attacks, the horror of that event shone an inconvenient light on
the Schengen border code that allows the free passage of people within the European Union.
Accordingly, there was a need to implement security measures that would be applied across the
regional bloc. As noted by Etienne Schneider of Luxembourg, "Everyone agreed that while it was
France that was attacked, it was the whole of Europe that was the target. A national approach is
not enough. We need more."
The European Union thus moved to increase security on travelers, intensify the collection of data
on airline passengers, and implement stricter gun control laws. There was also an agreement
forged that would facilitate greater intelligence sharing and monitor the movement of money across
-- and outside -- Europe. To that latter end, a priority issue was to cut off funding for terrorism.
At the same time, tracking the circulation of money would assist in the tracking of terrorist activity.
Meanwhile, in a rare address to the French Parliament at the Palace of Versailles, President
France Review 2016
France
Hollande said he would table a bill to extend the state of emergency declared after the attacks for
three months, and he would also suggest changes to the constitution that would facilitate better
anti-terrorism probes without having to resort to declaring emergency measures. He also called for
dual nationals to be stripped of their French citizenship if they were convicted of any acts of
terrorism. Other measures under consideration included the deployment of thousands more police
and no reductions to the defense budget. As well, the French air craft carrier, the Charles de
Gaulle, was being sent to the region to assist in the mission against Islamic State.
In that particular regard, France had already intensified its strikes on Islamic State targets in Syria
and would continue to do so. To this end, France deployed its air craft carrier, the Charles de
Gaulle, to the Middle Eastern region for the purpose of supporting the effort against Islamic State.
France was not limiting its air strike campaign from the Charles de Gaulle only to Islamic State
targets in Syria, such as the terror group stronghold of Raqqa; indeed, France soon expanded its
scope to hit Islamic State targets in Ramadi and Mosul in Iraq.
The French leader vowed that France would prevail despite the worst horror unfolding on his
country's soil in recent times. President Hollande said: “The barbarians who want to disfigure it
must not be allowed to change France’s soul. He added that France's “values, culture, youth, way
of life” would stand because “terrorism will never destroy the Republic. The Republic will destroy
terrorism.” But President Hollande also made clear to state this his country was at war -- but not
with the religion of Islam. He said: “France is at war . But we are not engaged in a war of
civilizations, because these assassins do not represent any civilization.”
Overall, a general consensus was emerging. While the West, including the United States and
France, objected to President Bashar al-Assad remaining in power in Syria and blamed him for
being the root cause of the Syrian crisis, the West was willing to work with Russia, which was
actively shoring up the Assad regime militarily, in the battle against Islamic State. As noted by
French President Hollande: "Our enemy in Syria is Daesh [Islamic State]."
As November 2015 drew to a close, French President Francois Hollande traveled to the United
States to meet with President Barack Obama to discuss the threat posed by Islamic State in the
aftermath of the horrific Paris terror attacks and with the Islamist terror group threatening to go
after American targets. At the conclusion of their meeting, President Obama and President
Hollande agreed to intensify and expand their military operations against Islamic State and also to
coordinate intelligence on domestic threats. During a joint news conference at the White House,
President Obama noted the long-standing and historic friendship between his country and France,
dating back to the 18th century and distinguishing France as the United States' oldest ally. For his
part, the French president said that he and President Obama were united in their "relentless
determination to fight terrorism anywhere and everywhere." President Hollande said, "We will not
let the world be destroyed. To face Daesh (Islamic State), we must have a common, collective and
implacable response. We must destroy Daesh wherever it is, cut its financial resources, hunt down
France Review 2016
France
its leaders, dismantle its networks and reconquer the territory it controls."
Written by Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, www.countrywatch.com; see
Bibliography for research sources.
National Security
External Threats
While no foreign powers pose an imminent threat to France, several countries, including Comoros,
Madagascar, Mauritius, and Vanuatu, contest some of the formal colonial power’s territorial claims
in the Indian Ocean and South Pacific. Likewise, Suriname claims a large region within the
boundaries of an overseas department, French Guiana. In addition,France asserts a territorial claim
inAntarctica, the Adelie Land.
Crime
There is a moderate amount of criminal activity in France. While the overall amount of crime has
decreased in recent years, the amount of violent crimes is actually increasing. Theft is also
relatively common, particularly in urban regions frequented by tourists and on trains. In addition to
street crime, Franceplays host to an illicit narcotics industry. It serves as both an interim destination
and a consumer market for Southwest Asian heroin, Latin American cocaine, and Europeanengineered synthetic drugs.
Insurgencies
Having relinquished most of its overseas holdings, Franceno longer faces the barrage of
independence movements that fostered the dissolution of its colonial empire in the aftermath of the
Second World War. Small-scale nationalist campaigns pose a lingering threat to French national
France Review 2016
France
security, however. Acts of violence accompanied a pro-independence movement in one of its last
remaining territories, New Caledonia, in the 1980s and early 1990s. The concept of self-rule is still
popular there, but its proponents have adopted a less militant posture. Elements on the island of
Corsicaseeking greater autonomy and/or outright independence have also used violent means in
pursuit of their objective. In June 2003, French authorities convicted eight Corsican nationalists for
their roles in the 1998 assassination of the Corsican prefect, Claude Erignac, four of whom
received life sentences.
Separatists from the Basque region, which straddles France and Spain, pose a threat to both
countries. Since its foundation in 1959, the radical Basque Fatherland and Libertyorganization,
known more commonly by the Spanish acronym ETA, has perpetrated numerous acts of violence.
The majority of those attacks have taken place in Spain. The organization has also established a
menacing presence in France. In October 2003, a French court sentenced Alberto Rey-Domecq to
six and a half years in prison for his alleged affiliation with ETA.
Terrorism
France has taken a very active role in combating global terrorism, which poses a credible threat to
its own national security. After the 2001 terror attacks in the United States, France sent forces to
Afghanistan to fight the Taliban there.
In 2008, it confirmed extra troops deployments to Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, French authorities made steady progress in terrorist related-investigations. In June
2003, they arrested a Moroccan national, Karim Mehdi, at Charles de Gaulle airport. Mehdi is
allegedly affiliated with an al-Qaida cell in Hamburg, Germany, members of which aided the
September 11 hijackers. Additionally, he is suspected of having played a role in a plot to attack
tourist facilities on Reunion Island. Shortly after apprehending Mehdi, French officials arrested a
German convert to Islam, Christian Ganczarski, for his alleged role in an April 2002 terrorist attack
on a synagogue in Tunisia, for which al-Qaida claims responsibility. They continue to investigate
the activities of Djamal Beghal, an Algerian man suspected of plotting to attack the United States
( U.S.) Embassy in Paris, who was arrested in Dubaion unrelated charges. Several of his coconspirators have since been apprehended in France.
Francehas also cooperated with the international community to facilitate the prevention,
investigation and prosecution of terrorism. It is party to all 12 international conventions and
protocols pertaining to terrorism. Francecollaborates closely with its European neighbors on
counterterrorism initiatives. It has also pursued dialogues with several non-European Union (EU)
countries on matters pertaining to terrorism, including India, Pakistan, Singapore and Turkey.
France has advocated the implementation of a formal program to enhance the cooperation of
France Review 2016
France
Mediterranean states in North Africa and Europe to combat terrorist violence rooted in Islamic
extremism. Though France opposed the use of force inIraqin March 2003 and did not join the
U.S.-led coalition that liberated the country from Saddam Hussein’s rule, they still actively support
the global war on terrorism.
In recent years, France continued to act in accord with U.S.requests under Executive Order 13224
to freeze Taliban, al-Qaida, and other terrorist financial assets. U.S.and French authorities
cooperated closely to provide enhanced security for airline flights during periods of heightened
concern.
In addition to global terrorism, small-scale nationalist campaigns pose a lingering threat to French
national security. Some separatist movements have adopted terrorism as a means to pursue their
objectives. The Basque Fatherland and Liberty organization (ETA) and the National Front for the
Liberation of Corsica (FLNC) continue to operate in France. Representatives have perpetrated the
bombings of local government institutions, banks and travel agencies (see above section on
insurgencies).
Security Considerations
French military doctrine is based on the concepts of national independence, nuclear deterrence, and
military sufficiency. France is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), and has worked actively with Allies to adapt NATO, internally and externally, to the postCold War environment. In 1966, the French withdrew from NATO's military bodies while
remaining full participants in the alliance's political councils. In December 1995, France increased
its participation in NATO's military wing, including the Military Committee. France will co-host
with Germany the 2009 NATO Summit and may announce further rapprochement with NATO's
military structures, consistent with President Sarkozy's stated goals.
France released a white paper on defense in June 2008 that assessed foreign and domestic defense
and security issues. The white paper was intended to provide a comprehensive security strategy for
the next 25 years, reflecting a changed 21st century security environment, and to outline
restructuring proposals to make the French military more flexible, technologically advanced, and
better able to coordinate with allies such as the United States (U.S.) and multilateral organizations
such as the European Union (EU), NATO, and the United Nations(UN). Consistent with the white
paper, France has undertaken a major restructuring to develop a professional military that will be
smaller, more rapidly deployable, and better tailored for operations outside of mainland France.
Key elements of the restructuring include reducing personnel, bases, and headquarters and
rationalizing equipment and the armament industry. French active-duty military number about
350,000 (including Gendarmes), of which over 35,000 were deployed outside of French territory
as of July 2008. France completed the move to all-professional armed forces when conscription
France Review 2016
France
ended on December 31, 2002.
France has actively and heavily participated in a variety of peacekeeping/coalition efforts in Africa,
the Middle East, and the Balkans, often taking the lead in these operations. France also remains a
firm supporter of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and other
efforts at cooperation.
France places a high priority on arms control and non-proliferation. After conducting a final series
of six nuclear tests, the French signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. France has
implemented a moratorium on the production, export, and use of anti-personnel landmines and
supports negotiations leading toward a universal ban. France is an active participant in the major
supplier regimes designed to restrict transfer of technologies that could lead to proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction: the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Australia Group (for chemical and
biological weapons), the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Missile Technology Control Regime.
France participates actively in the Proliferation Security Initiative, and is engaged with the U.S.,
both bilaterally and at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), to curb nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC)
proliferation. France has joined with the U.S., Germany, and the other three permanent members
of the UN Security Council to offer a package of incentives and disincentives to Iran to halt its
uranium enrichment activities. France, along with other EU member states, was instrumental in
pressing for Europe's adoption of UNSCR 1803, calling for extra vigilance over Iranian banks.
France has also signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. France maintains a colorcoded security system, similar to that of the U.S., consisting of yellow, orange, red, and scarlet
threat levels.
Terrorism in the Homeland
Terrorism at the hands of Islamist Jihadists has plagued France, with its significant Muslim
population, throughout the year of 2015. Please see "Political Conditions" for details.
Defense Forces
Military Data
Military Branches:
France Review 2016
France
Army (includes Marines, Foreign Legion, Army Light Aviation), Navy (includes naval air), Air
Force (includes Air Defense)
Eligible age to enter service:
18 for voluntary service
Mandatory Service Terms:
One year
Manpower in general population-fit for military service:
males age 16-49: 12,025,341
females age 16-49: 11,721,827
Manpower reaching eligible age annually:
males: 396,050
females: 377,839
Military Expenditures-Percent of GDP:
1.8%
Appendix: French Territories and Jurisdiction
FRENCH TERRITORIES AND JURISDICTION
***
French Polynesia
Location and relationship to sovereign power
France Review 2016
France
The 118 islands and atolls that comprise French Polynesia lie in the middle of South Pacific Ocean,
about halfway between South America and Australia. Divided into five separate archipelagos, the
islands of French Polynesia take up a total area less than one-third of the US state of Connecticut,
or 4,167 square kilometers.
History
The French Polynesian islands were acquired by France at various points during the 19th century
colonial period. Perhaps the island is most famous as the sometime home and frequent subject of
the painter Paul Gauguin, and as a popular tourist destination. Since 1946 it has been a French
territory.
Government
French Polynesia is one of France’s six collectivités d’outre-mer, or overseas collectivities. This
designation differs from the régions d’outre mer, or overseas regions, status given to a number of
other French dependencies such as Guadeloupe or Martinique in that it has autonomy in all areas
except police and justice, monetary policy, tertiary education, immigration, and defense and foreign
affairs. For the governance of all other local concerns, French Polynesia has its own president and
Territorial Assembly.
The five archipelagic divisions of the territory are Archipel des Marquises, Archipel des Tuamotu,
Archipel des Tubuai, Ilês du Vent, and Ilês Sous-le-Vent. The capital city is Papeete.
Politics
French Polynesia elects two members to the French Senate and two to the French National
Assembly, as well as voting for the French president. Regionally, citizens elect 57 members to the
Territorial Assembly for terms of 5 years each. Local political parties include the Alliance for a
New Democracy or ADN (includes the parties The New Star and This Country is Yours), the
Independent Front for the Liberation of Polynesia (Tavini Huiraatira), the New Fatherland Party
(Ai'a Api), Our Home alliance, Popular Rally (Tahoeraa Huiraatira), and the Union for Democracy
alliance or UPD.
Economy
French Polynesia is considered to be moderately developed and has three main economic sectors:
agriculture, military, and tourism. A small manufacturing sector also exists that deals with the
France Review 2016
France
processing of agricultural products. Deep-sea fishing and pearl farming are the most profitable
agricultural products, and tourism accounts for about a quarter of the total GDP. One of the most
famous products of the country, and the biggest source of export revenues, is the Tahitian black
pearl. Along with cultured pearls, some of the most prominent exports include Tahitian vanilla and
shark meat.
Like many of France’s overseas territories, the economy of French Polynesia is tied heavily to the
economy of the mother country. Prior to 1962, when France installed a military base on the
island, French Polynesia had a primarily subsistence agricultural economy. A large proportion of
the work force was employed by the military until 1996, when nuclear testing on the island came
to a halt. Still, much of the economic development in the region comes from cooperative initiatives
with France aimed at fostering new enterprise and building up social services. French Polynesia
also imports a great deal of goods from France and relies on its economic assistance.
The trade balance is negative, with exports totaling $181 million and imports $1.71 billion in 2005.
The official currency is the Comptoirs Français du Pacifique franc, or CFP franc, which is also
used by the French territories of New Caledonia and Wallis and Futuna.
In 2004, GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity was $4.78 billion, and GDP per capita was
$18,000.
Demography
In recent years, French Polynesia has a population of 287,032 people. It is a relatively young
country, with the average age standing at around 29 years old. Average life expectancy is 76 years,
slightly lower than in the United States but comparable to Argentina. The fertility rate is relatively
low, with an average of 1.92 children born to each woman, and population growth stands at about
1.4% per year. French Polynesia attracts its fair share of immigrants, with a net migration rate of
2.73 people per 1,000 members of the population.
Ethnic Polynesians make up 78% of the population, while ethnic Chinese are the second most
populous group at 12%. People identifying themselves as French, whether native or from other
areas of French influence, constitute the remaining 10% of the populace.
Culture
Unlike its mother country, French Polynesia is predominantly Protestant. 54% of French
Polynesians belong to Protestant denominations, while a sizable 30% Roman Catholic majority
exists as well.
France Review 2016
France
Literacy rates are high, with 98% of the population over the age of 14 able to read and write.
***
Mayotte
Mayotte is part of the Comoros archipelago, located off the northwest coast of Madagascar in the
Mozambique Channel in the southern Indian Ocean. Annexed by France in 1874 along with the
rest of the Comoros, it was the only island in the archipelago that voted against independence in
1974, choosing instead to remain tied to France. In a 2009 referendum, voters overwhelmingly
approved a referendum become an official department d’outre mer, or overseas department, of
France; this designation will become official in 2011.
Its capital city is Mamoudzou.
History
Mayotte came under French rule in 1843 along with the rest of the Comoros islands. After the
Comoros attained independence in 1974, Mayotte chose to stay under France’s domain. In 2011
Mayotte will become France’s 101st département.
Government
Officially, Mayotte is a departmental collectivity of France, meaning that the French president is
the official head of state. The president appoints a regional governor, known as a prefect, to
oversee regional matters. Additionally, Mayotte retains a local unicameral legislative body, the
Conseil General or General Council, which consists of 19 members elected by popular vote to
serve 3-year terms. The president of the General Council is considered to be the head of local
government and is elected internally by members of the General Council to serve a 6-year term.
Mayotte also elects two members to the French Senate and one to the National Assembly.
The French Army assumes defense responsibilities, and keeps a small number of forces on the
island.
Politics
France Review 2016
France
Mayotte’s citizens vote in both French national election and local elections. A number of
homegrown political parties exist, including the Democratic Front or FD; Federation of Mahorans
or UMP-RPR; Force of the Rally and the Alliance for Democracy or FRAP; Mahoran Popular
Movement or MPM; Movement for Department Status Mayotte or MDM; Renewed Communist
Party of Mayotte or MRC; Socialist Party or PS (local branch of French Parti Socialiste); Union
for French Democracy or UDF
Economy
Mayotte’s economy is primarily agricultural, and the country relies heavily on French imported
goods and financial assistance. Its primary agricultural products are vanilla, ylang-ylang, coffee,
copra, fish, and livestock. In recent years, a burgeoning lobster and shrimp industry has emerged.
Although a small tourism sector exists, the remote location of the island remains a significant
hurdle.
The trade balance heavily skews toward imports, with 2005 statistics reporting $6.5 million in
exports and $341million in imported goods. The most important exported products are vanilla,
ylang-ylang perfume essence, coffee, cinnamon, and copra. In turn, Mayotte imports a good deal
of its food, machinery, and raw materials, primarily from France.
The currency is the Euro. In 2005 the GDP by purchasing power parity was $953.6 million, with
a per capita GDP of $4,900. Unemployment is relatively high, at 25.7%.
Demography
In recent years, Mayotte’s population was measured at 223,765.
Mayotte has one of the most rapidly increasing populations in the world, ranking 6th among
countries on a list of the world’s fastest-growing populations. With a relatively high birthrate and
low death rate, Mayotte’s population is increasing at a rate of about 3.3% per year.
Mayotte has a very young population, with a median age of 17. Approximately 45% of the
population is under the age of 15.
Culture
Mayotte is a predominantly Muslim country, with 97% of citizens affiliating themselves with the
Islamic faith. The remaining 3% are mostly Roman Catholic.
France Review 2016
France
Residents of Mayotte are called “Mahorais”, a designation used both in singular and plural
contexts, or “Mahoran” in the adjective form.
The most widely spoken language is Mahorian, a Swahili dialect. French is spoken by about 35%
of the population.
***
Wallis and Futuna
The French overseas territory known formally as the Territory of the Wallis and Futuna Islands
consists of two distinct island groups in the middle of the South Pacific Ocean, about 2/3 of the
way along the path from New Zealand to Hawaii.
History
The colonial history of Wallis and Futuna begins with the Dutch arrival at the Futuna island group
in 1616. In 1767, the British came to the Wallis archipelago. However, in 1842 it was France that
declared a protectorate over both Wallis and Futuna. In 1959, the citizens of the island voted to
become an official overseas territory of France.
Government
As an overseas territory of France, the government has two major levels. The French government,
with its laws and elected officials, serves as a federal power. On the local level there is a 20-seat
unicameral legislative body, the Territorial Assembly, whose members are elected by popular vote.
The President of the Territorial Assembly is the local head of government. The local cabinet is
known as the Council of the Territory, a group consisting of three members of the Territorial
Assembly and three traditional kings. The island group is divided into three kingdoms, Alo, Sigave,
and Wallis, each with its own traditional king. These three kings have limited powers that include
serving on the Territorial Assembly and administering customary laws where they apply.
In addition to the local kings, there is a territorial high administrator appointed by the French
president on the advice of the French Secretary of the Interior.
France Review 2016
France
Politics
Citizens of Wallis and Futuna vote in both local and French national elections. The territory elects
one member to the French Senate and one member to the French National Assembly, and
participates in the presidential elections.
Members of the Territorial Assembly are elected by popular vote to serve 5-year terms. Political
parties include the Lua Kae Tahi, the Mouvement des Radicaux de Gauche or MRG, the Rally for
the Republic or RPR (UMP), the Socialist Party or PS, the Taumu'a Lelei, the Union Populaire
Locale or UPL, and the Union Pour la Democratie Francaise or UD.
Economy
Wallis and Futuna has an economy based on traditional subsistence agriculture, with 80% of the
labor force earning wages from farming coconuts and vegetables, livestock raising, and fishing.
Government employment is about 4% of the work force, with government funding coming from
French subsidies, licensing of fishing rights to Japan and South Korea, import taxes, and
remittances from expatriate workers in New Caledonia.
In 2004, GDP was $60 million, with a GDP per capita of $3,800. Because the islands produce so
few goods and materials, the trade balance is heavily skewed toward imports, with $61.2 million in
imports and $47,450 in exports, according to 2004 figures.
Demography
The population is small, with only 15,343 people in recent years. The growth rate is also low, at
0.37%, and there is a negative net migration rate due to increasing numbers of people moving to
New Caledonia. The fertility rate is low, at 1.84 children for each woman.
Culture
Wallis and Futuna shares many cultural similarities with neighboring island groups in the South
Pacific. Its local culture is distinctly Polynesian.
Roman Catholicism is by far the predominant religion, with 99% of citizens identifying as Catholic.
The two major languages are Wallisian, spoken by 59% of the population, and Futunian, spoken by
30% of the population. In addition to these indigenous Polynesian languages, French is spoken by
about 10% of the population.
France Review 2016
France
Although there is a capital “city” at Mata-Utu on Ile Uvea, there are no real urban areas in Wallis
and Futuna. The entire population is thus classified as rural.
***
Saint-Pierre and Miquelon
Located off the southern coast of Newfoundland, the overseas collectivity of St. Pierre and
Miquelon is the last remaining French dependent territory in North America (not including the
Caribbean).
History
St. Pierre and Miquelon traces its history to settlers from the Basque and Breton regions of
France. French setters arrived on the island in the 17th century. Britain seized control of the
island for the period between 1713 to 1763, and then again during the French Revolution. Britain
finally ceded the islands to the French in 1814. In 1946, St. Pierre and Miquelon attained the
status of overseas territory, became an overseas department in 1946, then became a territorial
collectivity in 1985, and finally gained its current status of overseas collectivity in 2003.
Government
St. Pierre and Miquelon has a unicameral local legislative branch called the Territorial Council,
made up of 19 democratically elected members (15 from St. Pierre, 4 from Miquelon) who serve
for 5 years each. The collectivity also elects one member to the French Senate and one to the
National Assembly. The president of the Territorial Council is the local head of government, with
a regional prefect serving as the French government’s representative.
Politics
Voters elect both the French president and members of the Territorial Council, while the French
president appoints the local prefect on the advice of the Secretary of the Interior.
Local political parties include the Left Radical Party or PRG, the Rassemblement pour la
Republique or UMP, the Saint Pierre and Miquelon 2000/Avenir Miquelon or SPM 2000/AM, the
Socialist Party or PS, the Union pour la Democratie Francaise or UDF
France Review 2016
France
Economy, and the Archipelago Tomorrow or AD (affiliated with UDF/UMP ),Cap sur l'Avenir
(affiliated with PRG) party.
Economy
St. Pierre and Miquelon’s main economic activity is fishing, although the island remains heavily
dependent on French subsidies. In 2003 the GDP, adjusted for purchasing power parity, was $48.3
million, with a GDP per capita of $7,000. Like many of the dependent territories, the trade
balance is skewed heavily toward imports, producing $5.5 million worth of exports and importing
$68.2 million worth of goods. The major export is fish, although the local government is working
with the French government to create a tourism industry, which it hopes will boost the local
economy.
Demography
The population of St. Pierre and Miquelon is small—with 6,010 estimated citizens in recent years - and it is shrinking and aging. The average age on the island is about 43 years, and the population
is shrinking at a rate of 0.85% per year. The birthrate remains low, at 1.5 children per woman,
well below the population replacement rate. Much of the population decline is due to emigration,
as it has one of the most negative rates of net migration in the world.
Culture
The culture of St. Pierre and Miquelon remains closely descended from its Breton and Basque
roots. The language spoken is French and the island is almost entirely Roman Catholic.
***
Saint-Martin
St. Martin is a French overseas collectivity located on an island in the eastern Caribbean Sea, about
300km southeast of Puerto Rico. It shares the island with the better-known Dutch territory of St.
Maarten.
History
France Review 2016
France
Although small in size (about 1/3 the size of Washington, DC), the island of St. Martin has had a
colorful history. Christopher Columbus claimed it for Spain in 1493, although it was not fully
colonized until the Dutch arrived in 1631 and began to exploit its salt mines. In 1633, the Spanish
retook control the island, although the Dutch never fully left. In 1648 the Spanish gave control of
the island to the French and the Dutch, who divided up the island into two regions.
Sugar cane cultivation began in the late 18th century, and with it slave practices. Slavery was
abolished on the island in 1848. It became a free port in 1939, and during the 1970s and 1980s
was developed heavily for tourism
St. Martin was a part of the French overseas territory of Guadeloupe until 2003, when it voted to
secede. In 2007 it attained the status of overseas collectivity of France.
Government
St. Martin is one of France’s collectivités d’outre-mer, or overseas collectivities. The French
president is the head of state, with a locally appointed representative prefect. The head of the local
government is the president of the Territorial Council, a 23-seat unicameral legislative body. The
cabinet is the Executive Council, and in addition there are also advisory economic, social, and
cultural councils.
Politics
Universal suffrage exists for people over the age of 18. Citizens of St. Martin vote for the French
president as well as members of the Territorial Council, who serve 5-year terms. The
The local political parties are the Union Pour le Progres or UPP, the Rassemblement
Responsabilite Reussite or RRR, and the Reussir Saint-Martin.
Economy
Tourism is by far the main engine driving St. Martin’s economy. About 85% of the labor force
works in tourism-related fields. A small industrial sector exists, and there is almost no agricultural
production—most of the food consumed on the island is imported. St. Martin relies heavily on
imports from North America for its energy resources and consumer goods.
Demography
France Review 2016
France
St. Martin’s population stands at 30,235 people in recent times. Like much of the Caribbean, St.
Martin is a melting pot. Ethnic groups on the island are highly diverse, with natives claiming
Creole, black, Guadeloupe mestizo (a combination French and East Asian), European Caucasian,
and East Indian identity.
Culture
In addition to being ethnically diverse, St. Martin also has a wide variety of religions and languages.
Religion is predominantly Christian with a small Hindu minority. French is the official language,
although English, Dutch, French Patois, Spanish, and Papiamento (a dialect of Netherlands
Antilles) are also spoken.
***
Guadeloupe
Guadeloupe is a French Caribbean island located in the so-called "Lesser Antilles" of the arc of
Caribbean islands.
Guadeloupe is under French jurisdiction. Once a French territory during the colonial era (with
brief interruptions discussed below), Guadeloupe became a French department in 1946, and has
been a overseas region of France since the 1980s. It is classified as a single unit overseas
department of France.
As a French department, the euro is the currency or monetary unit of use in Guadeloupe. BasseTerre is the capital city on the island, which measures just 658 square miles or 1705 square
kilometers.
History
Historically, Guadeloupe was inhabited by the indigenous Arawak and Carib people, although the
more aggressive Caribs soon overpowered to become the dominant indigenous force on the island.
Large swaths of the Carib population died as a result of exposure to European and European
diseases from the Era of Exploration that heralded colonialism. European colonialism was spurred
by the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1493. Although the indigenous people referred to
Guadeloupe as "Karukera" or "island of beautiful waters, Columbus renamed the island in
France Review 2016
France
memory of a Spanish monastery. Guadeloupe was settled by French colonists from the 17th
century onward, although its cultural makeup shifted with the arrival of African slaves who were
brought in too work on sugar cane and tobacco plantations. Guadeloupe's history of French rule
was occasionally interrupted by periods of British occupations in the 18th and early 19th centuries,
as well as a brief period of nominal Swedish rule. Those episodes aside, Guadeloupe's modern
history is that of being under French jurisdiction.
Politics and Government
The President of France is the head of state for Guadeloupe. As a French overseas region,
Guadeloupe is administered as a part of the French mainland. Accordingly, Guadeloupe has
representatives in the National Assembly and the Senate in Paris. The French government is
represented on the island by a prefect who is a presidential appointee. Local affairs are
administered by regional and general councils, the members of whom are elected by popular vote.
Economy
The economy of Guadeloupe's economy is dependent on tourism, with a lion's share of visitors
coming from France. The economy also centers around agriculture, specifically including crops
such as sugar cane and bananas, which are subject to tough regional competition. Accordingly,
there is dependence on the economic scene in Paris and public sector jobs. While unemployment
and inflation have posed challenges in Guadeloupe, even leading to social unrest in recent years,
the French government responded by increasing wages for low paid workers and promising
reforms. The standard of living here is somewhat mitigated by the benefits of France's social
security system.
Demography
The population of Guadeloupe is estimated to be 463,000 in recent years. Life expectancy is
consistent with that of mainland France -- 76 years of age for men and 84 years of age for women.
The major religion is Christianity and the languages of Guadeloupe include French and Patois -- a
Creole dialect. The people of Guadeloupe are ethnically of mixed ancestry, a legacy of the fact
that they are predominantly the descendants of French settlers and African slaves.
Culture
Guadeloupe is known to be a center of creolized Caribbean culture as it blends French, Caribbean,
and African influences in its expressions of music, dance, art, and even its food and the local Patois
France Review 2016
France
language (a Creole dialect blending indigenous, African, and French language elements).
***
Martinique
Martinique is a French Caribbean island located in the so-called "Lesser Antilles" of the arc of
Caribbean islands.
Martinique is under French jurisdiction. Once a French territory during the colonial era (with brief
interruptions discussed below), Martinique became a French department in 1946, and has been a
overseas region of France since the 1980s. It is classified as a single unit overseas department of
France.
As a French department, the euro is the currency or monetary unit of use in Martinique . Fort-deFrance is the capital city on the island, which measures just 425 square miles or 1100 square
kilometers.
History
Historically, Martinique was inhabited by the indigenous Arawak and Carib people, although the
more aggressive Caribs soon overpowered to become the dominant indigenous force on the island.
Large swaths of the Carib population died as a result of exposure to European and European
diseases from the Era of Exploration that heralded colonialism. European colonialism was spurred
by the arrival of Christopher Columbus late 15th century. Martinique was settled by French
colonists from 1635 onward, although its cultural makeup shifted with the arrival of African slaves
who were brought in too work on sugar cane and tobacco plantations. Martinique's history of
French rule was briefly interrupted by Spanish occupation and British rule. The flourishing sugar
cane plantation system attracted colonial powers from other European countries. That being said,
Martinique's modern history is that of being under French jurisdiction.
The President of France is the head of state for Martinique. As a French overseas region,
Martinique is administered as a part of the French mainland. Accordingly, Martinique has
France Review 2016
France
administered by regional and general councils, the members of whom are elected by popular vote.
Economy
The economy of Martinique's economy is dependent on tourism, with a lion's share of visitors
coming from France. The economy also centers around agriculture, specifically including crops
such as sugar cane and bananas, which are subject to tough regional competition. Accordingly,
there is dependence on the economic scene in Paris and public sector jobs. While unemployment
and inflation have posed challenges in Martinique, even leading to nationalist (anti-Paris) sentiment
at times, these episodes have generally passed on with the status quo maintained. Indeed, a
referendum on greater autonomy for Martinique went down to spectacular defeat in 2010. The
standard of living here is somewhat mitigated by the benefits of France's social security system.
Demography
The population of Martinique is estimated to be 407,000 in recent years. Life expectancy is
consistent with that of mainland France -- 77 years of age for men and 84 years of age for women.
The major religion is Christianity and the languages of Martinique include French and Patois -- a
Creole dialect. The people of Martinique are ethnically of mixed ancestry, a legacy of the fact that
they are predominantly the descendants of French settlers and African slaves.
Culture
Martinique is known to be a center of creolized Caribbean culture as it blends French, Caribbean,
and African influences in its expressions of music, dance, art, and even its food and the local Patois
language (a Creole dialect blending indigenous, African, and French language elements).
Martinique is particularly distinguished culturally as the birthplace of the African-French music
form "the Beguine," which is related to other French Caribbean "zouk" music. Aimé Césaire is one
of the world's great poets and writers who hailed from Martinique.
***
French Guiana
France Review 2016
France
French Guiana is an overseas region of France located on the northern Atlantic coast of South
America. French Guiana borders Suriname and Brazil. Its total area is over 30,000 square miles or
about 84,000 square kilometers. The population measures around 236,000. This region of French
jurisdiction has low population density with the majority of people living in the capital city of
Cayenne. As a French overseas territory, the euro is the currency or monetary unit of use in
French Guiana.
History
French Guiana was originally inhabited by indigenous peoples. It was occupied by France in the
17th century, settled by Dutch and Spanish along the way, and came under French colonial rule in
the 18th century. Until the 1930s, French Guiana was actually a penal colony and home to the
well-known Devil's Island where tens of thousands of convicts expired due to malaria and yellow
fever. Disputes with Portugal over jurisdiction of the territory went on through the years but were
finally settled with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1814. At that time, the region was returned
to French jurisdiction although the Portuguese presence prevailed for a few year after. Portions of
the territory have claimed sovereignty at times, but in 1946, the full area of French Guiana became
an overseas department of France.
The President of France is the head of state for French Guiana. As a French overseas region,
French Guiana is administered as a part of the French mainland. Accordingly, French Guiana has
administered by councils, the members of whom are elected by popular vote.
Economy
Timber, fish, and gold make up the major industries in French Guiana. Eco-tourism in this
densely-forested part of South America with abundant natural splendor and wildlife in an untapped
opportunity. However, the lack of infrastructure would pose a problem for any tourism venture.
Beset by youth unemployment, French Guiana saw an outbreak of violence in the 1990s that
spurred tensions with mainland France. Reliance on subsidies from Paris, though, quelled the
nationalist notions in a referendum in 2010, which registered a sizable "no" vote against increased
autonomy. One key source of local economic development in French Guiana has been Kourou -a European Space Agency rocket launch site.
France Review 2016
France
Demography
As noted above, the population of French Guiana measures around 236,000. Life expectancy is 73
years of age for men and 81 years of age for women. The major religion is Christianity and the
languages include French and Patois -- a Creole dialect. The people of French Guiana come from
diverse backgrounds. Many are ethnically mixed of African and European ancestry; this mixed
ethnicity is a legacy of the fact that French Guiana was settled by people from France, Portugal,
Spain, England, along with people from Africa. Non-mixed blacks, known as the "Maroons" can
be found in the interior, along with remnant indigenous groups. There are also non-mixed
European, predominantly from France. There are, as well, people of African ancestry from Haiti
and other Caribbean islands living in French Guiana, as well as Asians, such as Chinese immigrants
and Hmong people from Laos who were resettled here.
***
France Review 2016
France
Chapter 3
Economic Overview
France Review 2016
France
Economic Overview
Overview
France is one of the largest economies in the world with a GDP of about US$2.2 trillion. It also is
the third largest economy in the European Union. The country's economic strength lies in its
substantial agricultural resources, a large industrial base, and a highly skilled workforce. A dynamic
services sector accounts for close to 80 percent of GDP, and nearly all job creation in recent years
is attributable to that sector. The country also has a diversified industrial sector, and is particularly
strong when it comes to the manufacturing of automobiles, pharmaceuticals, transport equipment,
and aircraft. Also, France is the world's second-largest agricultural producer after the United States;
agriculture and the agro-food industries account for a larger share of economic activity than in
many other Western European countries. France welcomes about 75 million foreign tourists a year,
making it the world’s visited country. Its tourism income is the third largest in the world.
The French economy weathered the global economic crisis better and suffered a less severe
recession than most of its peers. In 2009, real GDP contracted 2.5 percent in France, compared to
a contraction of about 4 percent in the euro area as a whole. This reflects its comparatively low
trade openness, a fairly resilient financial sector, the large social safety net, and timely and decisive
government intervention. As a result, the French economy exited the recession in the second
quarter of 2009. By 2010 and 2011, it had recovered somewhat. However, the recovery remained
fragile and the outlook uncertain with a high unemployment rate, substantial deterioration in the
public finances, and lingering concerns about sovereign debt risks from other European countries.
Domestic demand continued to grow stronger but the impetus from net exports was expected to
likely decline significantly in 2011.
Under President Sarkozy, France saw the passage of pension reform in 2010. The government also
withdrew stimulus measures in late 2010 and the move was expected to result in a temporary
reduction in household spending. Then the government implemented fiscal austerity measures in
January 2011, including a partial hiring freeze in the public sector and a cut in tax and welfare
loopholes. Such measures were expected to hinder growth of the country’s disposable income.
Lower-than-expected growth and increased unemployment in 2011 cut government revenues and
increased borrowing costs, contributing to a deterioration of France's public finances. In May 2012,
Socialist Francois Hollande won the French presidential election, after advocating pro-growth
economic policies, as well as measures such as forcing banks to separate their investment and
savings businesses, increasing taxes on bank profits, introducing a new top bracket on income taxes
for people earning over US$1.3 million a year, and hiring an additional 60,000 civil servants during
his five-year term of office. By the end of May 2012, France's jobless rate was at a near 13-year
France Review 2016
France
high to 2.89 million. Yet, French consumer spending rebounded more strongly than expected in
April 2012 despite the climbing unemployment. the Despite being euro zone's second largest
economy, France posted zero growth in the first quarter of 2012 as consumption stalled, exports
slowed and business cut back their investment. Looking ahead, analysts expected the economy to
contract in the second quarter before gradually improving towards the end of 2012. The economy
was expected to further improve in 2013, but remain substantially below pre-crisis trend levels.
Socialist Party candidate Francois Hollande won the May 2012 presidential election with his
pledges to push pro-growth economic policies, separation of banks' traditional deposit taking and
lending activities from more speculative businesses, increasing the top corporate and personal tax
rates, and the hiring an additional 60,000 teachers during his five-year term. The government
unsuccessfully tried to introduce a 75 percent wealth tax on income over one million euros for two
years. The French Constitutional Council argued that it applied to individuals rather than
households. In October 2012, France ratified the EU fiscal stability treaty and Hollande’s
government reiterated France's commitment to meeting the budget deficit target of 3 percent of
GDP during 2013 despite signs that economic growth would be lower than the government's
forecast of 0.8 percent.
By April 2013, President Hollande had to acknowledge France would miss its target of cutting the
deficit to 3 percent of GDP and that 2014 might be a more realistic deadline. At the same time, the
European Commission was warning that France's resilience to external shocks was “diminishing”
and that the country’s medium-term growth prospects were “increasingly hampered by longstanding imbalances.” A commission report noted that France's share of the EU's export market
slipped by 11.2 percent between 2006 and 2011. It also noted that rising unit labor costs have
made the country less competitive. And France's central bank said the country had barely avoided
a recession in the first quarter with growth of 0.1 percent.
Meanwhile, President Hollande pledged to move forward with plans to slash the country’s deficit
despite increasing resistance within his government that the cuts give in too much to German
austerity demands. Specifically, Hollande was seeking more than 60 billion euros of savings to
balance the budget by the end of his mandate in 2017. Benoit Hamon, junior minister for
consumer affairs, arguing that “deficit-cutting is a marathon. You don't finish a marathon by
running at the pace of a 400-metre sprinter,” according to the daily Le Parisien as cited by Reuters.
France's real GDP stagnated again in 2013. The unemployment rate (including overseas territories)
spiked to 10.2 percent in 2013 compared with 7.8 percent in 2008. Meanwhile, the budget deficit
rose sharply from 3.3 percent of GDP in 2008 to 7.5 percent of GDP in 2009 before improving to
4.1 percent of GDP in 2013, while France's public debt rose from 68 percent of GDP to nearly 94
percent over the same period. In line with its EU obligations, France was targeting a deficit of 3.6
percent of GDP in 2014 and 2.8 percent in 2015.
In January 2014 President Hollande proposed a “Responsibility Pact” aimed primarily at lowering
France Review 2016
France
labor costs in return for businesses’ commitment to create jobs. Then, in mid-April 2014, he
created a panel to reduce and simplify red tape for French business such as making it easier for
entrepreneurs to register new companies. The moves were part of his broader-reaching plan to
slash payroll. Also in April 2014, French banks issued US$3.7 billion in secured notes as part of a
pilot project encouraged by the Bank of France. Despite his efforts, President Hollande’s
popularity plunged to the lowest levels since he was elected in May 2013. Only 18 percent of those
polled in 2014 reported being satisfied with his performance.
In the second quarter of 2014, France’s economy contracted. But by the third quarter of 2014, it
had bounced back. The French economy grew faster than economists forecast in the third quarter
thanks to increased domestic demand. The 0.3 percent growth was the biggest jump the country
had seen in more than a year. Still, economists expressed concern that the country was “moving
toward entrenched stagnation.” Businesses remained reluctant to hire or invest and investors were
hesitant to take risks due to complex administrative procedures and potential tax implications.
In mid-February 2015, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared he would move a flagship
economic reform bill through parliament by decree in the face of broad-based criticism. The
package, which included rules to broaden trading hours and deregulate some sectors, was largely
designed to boost growth and persuade the EC to give the country more time to get its public
finances into line with EU rules.
Societe Generale analyst Michel Martinez was quoted by Reuters as saying that the bill was a
welcome move to decrease red tape but would not “change the face of France.” He also predicted
it would have a limited macroeconomic impact, boosting GDP by about 0.5 percent a year within
five to 10 years.
France's economy emerged from stagnation in 2015 when real GDP increased by an estimated 1.1
percent, according to Insee, the national statistical institute. This was mainly due to low energy
prices and interest rates and increased consumer spending. It compared to an estimated 0.2-0.7
percent growth in 2014. But France’s unemployment rate remained stubbornly above 10 percent.
Meanwhile France's public debt had climbed from an estimated 68 percent of GDP to more than
98 percent in 2015. It was projected to possibly hit 100 percent in 2016.
In 2015, the United Kingdom took over France as the as Europe’s second-largest economy by
some measures, while economic growth in France lagged behind both Germany and Britain.
French inflation unexpectedly turned negative in February 2016 for the first time in a year due to
falling energy prices.
“The recovery still faces many headwinds,” Diego Iscaro, economist at IHS Economics, was
quoted by the Financial Times as saying. “Growth will not be strong enough to make a significant
France Review 2016
France
dent in France’s elevated unemployment rate despite the measures implemented by the
government...”
President Hollande, who has pledged he would not run for re-election in 2017 unless
unemployment fell “significantly”, in January 2016 outlined a plan to slash unemployment. He said
France was in an economic “state of emergency”. The measures included the creation of 500,000
vocational training schemes, additional subsidies for small companies and a program to boost
apprenticeships.
See Special Entries below for detailed information related to the debt crisis in the euro zone.
Economic Performance
As a result of the global economic crisis, real GDP growth slowed significantly in 2008, followed
by a contraction in 2009 before rebounding in 2010 and 2011. By 2012, though, real GDP growth
slipped back into negative territory. A surge in world energy and other commodity prices caused a
sharp spike in inflation in 2008. With the rapidly falling world commodity prices, inflation declined
dramatically in 2009 but crept back up in 2010 and 2011 before turning negative in 2012. The
economic downturn led to the worsening of the fiscal position with a significant decline in revenue
combined with the fiscal stimulus. As a result, the fiscal deficit increased from 2007 to 2009. By
2010, it had dropped slightly.
According to CountryWatch estimated calculations for 2014:
Real GDP growth rate was: 0.7 percent
The fiscal deficit/surplus as percent of GDP (%) was: -4.5 percent
Inflation was measured at: 2.7 percent
Updated in 2016
*Please note that the figures in our Economic Performance section are estimates or forecasts
based on IMF-based data that are formulated using CountryWatch models of analysis.
Supplementary Sources: Roubini Global Economics, Bloomberg, Financial Times and Reuters
***
Global credit crisis; effects felt in Europe
Summary:
France Review 2016
France
A financial farrago, rooted in the credit crisis, became a global phenomenon by the start of
October 2008. In the United States, after failure of the passage of a controversial bailout plan in
the lower chamber of Congress, an amended piece of legislation finally passed through both houses
of Congress. There were hopes that its passage would calm jitters on Wall Street and restore
confidence in the country's financial regime. However, a volatile week on Wall Street followed,
most sharply characterized by a precipitous 18 percent drop of the Dow Jones. With the situation
requiring rapid and radical action, a new proposal for the government to bank stakes was gaining
steam. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in Europe, with banks also in jeopardy of failing, and with
no coordinated efforts to stem the tide by varying countries of the European Union, there were
rising anxieties not only about the resolving the financial crisis, but also about the viability of the
European bloc. Nevertheless, European leaders were able to forge an agreement aimed at easing
the credit crunch in that region of the world. Following is an exploration, first, of the situation in
the United States, and, second, of the situation unfolding in Europe.
Report:
On Sept. 28, 2008, as the United States was reeling from the unfolding credit crisis, Europe's
banking sector was also hit by its own woes when the Dutch operations of the European banking
and insurance entity, Fortis, was partly nationalized in an effort to prevent its ultimate demise.
Radical action was spurred by anxieties that Fortis was too much of a banking and financial giant to
be allowed to fail. The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg forged an agreement to contribute
more than 11 billion euros (approximately US$16 billion) to shore up Fortis, whose share price
fell precipitously due to worries about its bad debts.
A day later, the mortgage lender -- Bradford and Bingley -- in the United Kingdom was
nationalized when the British government took control of the bank's mortgages and loans. Left
out of the nationalization scheme were the savings and branch operations, which were sold off to
Santander of Spain. Earlier, the struggling mortgage lender, Northern Rock, had itself been
nationalized. The head of the British Treasury, Alistair Darling, indicated that "big steps" that
would not normally be taken were in the offing, given the unprecedented nature of the credit crisis.
On the same day, financial woes came to a head in Iceland when the government was compelled
to seize control of the country's third-largest bank , Glitnir, due to financial problems and fears that
it would go insolvent. Iceland was said to be in serious financial trouble, given the fact that its
liabilities were in gross excess of the country's GDP. Further action was anticipated in Iceland, as a
result.
On Sept 30, 2008, another European bank -- Dexia -- was the victim of the intensifying global
banking and financial crisis. In order to keep Dexia afloat, the governments of France, Belgium,
and Luxembourg convened talks and agreed to contribute close to 6.5 billion euros (approximately
US$9 billion) to keep Dexia from suffering a demise.
France Review 2016
France
Only days later, the aforementioned Fortis bank returned to the forefront of the discussion in
Europe. Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme said he was hoping to locate a new owner with the
aim of restoring confidence in Fortis, and thusly, preventing a further downturn in the markets.
Leterme said that the authorities were considering takeover bids for the Belgian operations of the
company (the Dutch operations were nationalized as noted above.)
By Sept. 5, 2008, one of Germany's biggest banks, Hypo Real Estate, was at risk of failing. In
response, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she would exhaust all efforts to save the bank.
A rescue plan by the government and banking institutions was eventually agreed upon at a cost of
50 billion euros (approximately US$70 billion). This agreement involved a higher cost than was
previously discussed.
Meanwhile, as intimated above, Iceland was enduring further financial shocks to its entire banking
system. As such, the government of Iceland was involved in intense discussions aimed at saving
the country's financial regime, which were now at severe risk of collapse due to insolvency of the
country's commercial banks.
Meanwhile, on Sept. 4, 2008, the leaders of key European states -- United Kingdom, France,
Germany, and Italy -- met in the French capital city of Paris to discuss the financial farrago and to
consider possible action. The talks, which were hosted by French President Nicolas Sarkozy,
ended without consensus on what should be done to deal with the credit crisis, which was rapidly
becoming a global phenomenon. The only thing that the four European countries agreed upon was
that there would not be a grand rescue plan, akin to the type that was initiated in the United
States. As well, they jointly called for more greater regulation and a coordinated response. To
that latter end, President Nicolas Sarkozy said, "Each government will operate with its own
methods and means, but in a coordinated manner."
This call came after Ireland took independent action to deal with the burgeoning financial crisis.
Notably, the Irish government decided days earlier to fully guarantee all deposits in the country's
major banks for a period of two years. The Greek government soon followed suit with a similar
action. These actions by Ireland and Greece raised the ire of other European countries, and
evoked questions of whether Ireland and Greece had violated any European Union charters. An
investigation by the European Union was pending into whether or not Ireland's guarantee of all
savings deposits was anti-competitive in nature.
Nevertheless, as anxieties about the safety of bank deposits rose across Europe, Ireland and
Greece saw an influx of new banking customers from across the continent, presumably seeking the
security of knowing their money would be safe amidst a financial meltdown. And even with
questions rising about the decisions of the Irish and Greek government, the government of
Germany decided to go down a similar path by guaranteeing all private bank accounts. For his part,
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that his government would increase the limit on
guaranteed bank deposits from £35,000 to £50,000.
France Review 2016
France
In these various ways, it was clear that there was no concurrence among some of Europe's most
important economies. In fact, despite the meeting in France, which called for coordination among
the countries of the European bloc, there was no unified response to the global financial crisis.
Instead, that meeting laid bare the divisions within the countries of the European Union, and
called into question the very viability of the European bloc. Perhaps that question of viability
would be answered at a forthcoming G8 summit, as recommended by those participating in the
Paris talks.
A week later, another meeting of European leaders in Paris ended with concurrence that no large
institution would be allowed to fail. The meeting, which was attended by leaders of euro zone
countries, resulted in an agreement to guarantee loans between banks until the end of 2009, with
an eye on easing the credit crunch. The proposal, which would apply in 15 countries, also
included a plan for capital infusions by means of purchasing preference shares from banks. The
United Kingdom, which is outside the euro zone, had already announced a similar strategy.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy argued that these unprecedented measures were of vital
importance. The French leader said, "The crisis has over the past few days entered into a phase
that makes it intolerable to opt for procrastination and a go-it-alone approach." He also tried to
ease growing frustration that such measures would benefit the wealthy by explaining that the
strategy would not constitute "a gift to banks."
While these developments were aimed at restoring confidence in the financial regime in Europe,
Iceland continued to struggle. Indeed, the country's economy stood precipitously close to
collapse. Three banks, including the country's largest one -- Kaupthing -- had to be rescued by
the government and nationalized. Landsbanki and Glitnir had been taken over in the days prior. A
spokesperson for Iceland's Financial Supervisory Authority said, "The action taken... was a
necessary first step in achieving the objectives of the Icelandic government and parliament to
ensure the continued orderly operation of domestic banking and the safety of domestic deposits."
With the country in a state of economic panic, trading on the OMX Nordic Exchange was
suspended temporarily, although it was expected to reopen on October 13, 2008. Iceland's Prime
Minister Geir Haarde said that his country was considering whether to seek assistance from the
International Monetary Fund to weather the crisis.
Iceland was also ensconced in a mini-imbroglio with the United Kingdom over that country's
decision to freeze Icelandic bank assets. At issue was the United Kingdon's reaction to the
unfolding crisis in Iceland, which the British authorities said left deposits by its own citizens at
risk. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown particularly condemned the government of Iceland for
its poor stewardship of the situation and also its failure to guarantee British savers' deposits
(Icelandic domestic deposits, by contrast, had been guaranteed by the country's Financial
Supervisory Authority). That said, the United Kingdom Treasury was eventually able to arrange
France Review 2016
France
for some British deposits to Kaupthing to be moved under the control of ING Direct. There were
also arrangements being made for a payout to Landsbanki's depositors.
According to the European Commission, European banks in early 2009 were in need of as much
as several trillion in bailout funding. Impaired or toxic assets factored highly on the European
Union bank balance sheets.
Overall, Eastern European countries borrowed heavily from Western European banks. Thus, if the
currencies on the eastern part of the continent collapsed, effects would be felt in the western part
of Europe as well. For example, Swiss banks that gave billions of credit to Eastern Europe cannot
look forward to repayment anytime soon. As well, Austrian banks have had extensive exposure to
Eastern Europe, and can anticipate a highly increased cost of insuring its debt.
German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck has warned that as many as 16 European Union
countries will require assistance. Indeed, his statements suggest the need for a regional rescue
effort. Of consideration is the fact that, according to the Maastricht Treaty, state-funded bailouts
are prohibited.
By the close of February 2009, it was announced that the banking sectors in Central and Eastern
Europe would receive a rescue package of $31 billion, via the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (EBRD), the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the World Bank. The rescue
package was aimed at assisting the survival of small financial institutions and included equity and
debt financing, as well as access to credit and risk insurance aimed at encouraging lending.
Special Entry 2
Greece's Debt Crisis and Impact on the Euro Zone
Summary:
Attempts to resolve Greece's economic crisis have been at the forefront of the national agenda.
There have also been serious concerns about Greece's economic viability across Europe and
internationally. At issue have been deep anxieties about Greece defaulting on its debt, along with
subsequent speculation about whether the European Union (EU) and the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) would have to step in to prevent such an outcome. By April 2010, the prospects of
Greece resolving the matter without help from some transnational body came to a head when the
Papandreou administration formally said it would accept the EU-IMF financial rescue package to
ensure debt service. But even with this move, Greece's credit rating was downgraded to junk status
due to prevailing doubts that it will meet its debt obligations.
Crisis Landscape:
In December 2009, the new Greek head of government, Prime Minister George Papandreou,
announced a series of harsh spending cuts in order to address the country's economic woes. He
France Review 2016
France
warned that without action such as a hiring freeze on public sector jobs, closure of overseas
tourism offices, and decreased social security spending, Greece was at risk of "sinking under its
debts." He also said that his country had "lost every trace of credibility" on the economic front and
would have to "move immediately to a new social deal."
Fears of a government debt default in Europe emerged in the first week of February 2010, with all
eyes focused on Greece. Of concern was the rising cost of insuring Greek debt against default,
and fears were rising that a bailout by the International Monetary Fund might be in the offing.
For its part, the Greek government pledged to reduce its budget deficit by three percent of gross
domestic product by 2012. That move was welcomed by the European Commission but met with
the threat of strikes by Greece's largest union, which has railed against the prospect of austerity
measures. By Feb. 10, 2010, the strike by the country's largest public sector union in Greece was
going forward. Simultaneously, Prime Minister George Papandreou promised to "take any
necessary measures" to reduce Greece's deficit including a freeze on public sector pay, increased
taxes and the implementation of changes to the pension system.
The next day, leaders of the European Union said that while Greece had not asked for assistance,
they stood ready to help ensure stability within the euro zone. A statement issued from a summit in
Brussels read as follows: "We fully support the efforts of the Greek government and their
commitment to do whatever is necessary, including adopting additional measures to ensure that the
ambitious targets set in the stability program for 2010 and the following years are met." The
statement, however, did not specify the nature of such support although there were indications that
a loan might be in the offing. Following a meeting of European leaders on Feb. 11, 2010, Austria's
Chancellor Werner Faymann explained the need to support fellow European Union member states
saying, "It is important to have solidarity." However, he added, "We are not going to give the
money as a present, it will be as loans."
Only a few days later, however, the news emerging from Europe was grimmer in regards to
Greece's situation. As reported by the British publication, the Telegraph, the council of European
Union finance ministers issued an ultimatum to Greece, warning that if that country did not comply
with austerity measures by March 16, 2010, it would lose sovereign control over its tax and spend
policies. The council also warned that the European Union would invoke Article 126.9 of the
Lisbon Treaty to take control from Athens and impose requisite cuts. This threat was likely to have
more of a practical effect on Greece than an earlier move by the European Union to suspend
Greece's voting rights, although both measures indicated a severe blow to Greek sovereignty within
the European bloc. From the point of view of the European Union, the verdict was that Greece's
austerity plan contained insufficient spending cuts and uncoordinated measures, and compelled the
need for such drastic action.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Greece took a different view. Greek Finance Minister George
Papaconstantinou argued that his country was "doing enough" to reduce its public deficit from 12
France Review 2016
France
percent to eight percent of GDP in 2010 by undertaking emergency fiscal cuts. Accordingly,
Greece has also been reticent about taking further austerity measures, such as an increase in the
value added tax or VAT, as well as further public sector wage cuts, which the European Central
Bank has said might be necessary. But the rest of Europe was unlikely to receive Greece's claims
on faith alone, given the emerging revelations that Wall Street likely helped Greece hide its balance
sheets problem for the purpose of advancing euro zone accession.
By the third week of February 2010, as talks in Brussels commenced about the financial crisis in
Greece, there was no consensus on the possible path toward helping stabilize the situation in that
country. In fact, member states of the European Union appeared divided on the issue. Germany
has said it wants to protect its own financial interests by constructing a "firewall" to prevent
Greece's debt crisis from spiraling out of control. It was not known if that "firewall" was distinct
from, or an actual euphemism for, a bailout for Greece funded by German funds. Certainly,
Germany has been careful not to expressly state that it supports some sort of bailout measure for
Greece, under the aegis of the European Union , using Germany funds. Indeed, Berlin would have
to contend with an outraged domestic reaction, as well as a resistant coalition partner in
government whose libertarian inclinations would leave them far from sanguine about such a move.
At the start of March 2010, in the face of pressure from the European Union, the Greek
government agreed to a new package of austerity measures, including tax increases and spending
cuts, aimed at resolving the budget crisis. The new package was met with approval from the
European Union and the International Monetary Fund, who respectively hailed the move as
evidence that Greece was taking necessary measures to reduce its precarious debt. The reactions
of these two bodies were regarded as crucial, since Greece was hoping for German-funded
assistance from the European Union, with the International Monetary Fund in line as an alternative
avenue of assistance.
Nevertheless, since the measures included reductions in holiday bonuses paid to civil servants as
well as a pension freeze, it effectively raised the ire of public sector workers and trade unions.
From their point of view, the financial package would exact a punishing toll on the workers of the
country. Not surprisingly, the country was hit by strikes with workers angrily protesting the deficitcutting government measures detailed above. With schools closed, public transportation, flights and
ferries at a halt, and garbage left uncollected, it was clear that the strike was in full-force. On the
streets of Athens, striking workers registered discontent, while riot police were deployed across the
city.
Regional Considerations:
Also at issue have been the fiscal challenges of Portugal and Spain, which like Greece, have to
contend with debt and weakened public finances. One challenge for Spain is the fact that the
central government (leaving the social security administration aside) controls only one-third of
public sector spending. Accordingly, while the central government can set guidelines for the
France Review 2016
France
regional and municipal authorities, it has a fairly limited effect on overall fiscal policy. In Portugal,
the government does not command a majority in parliament, effectively complicating the process
of implementing fiscal policies, and necessitating broad national consensus on the matter of the
country's economic health. Ireland, like Greece, suffers from budget deficits that exceed 12 percent
of their economic output. However, Ireland's record in navigating difficult economic times (late
1980s, early 1990s) was believed to be in that country's favor.
Thusly, at the broader level, the European Union has been faced with the moral hazard of having
to consider going down a similar path with Spain and Portugal, not to mention other European
countries. Clearly, the European Union had no appetite for such a precedent being set in Greece.
Not surprisingly, non-euro zone European Union members, such as the United Kingdom and
Sweden, were recommending the International Monetary Fund route. They argued that an entity
such as the IMF possessed the technocratic acumen and experience to orchestrate and supply a
loan bailout to Greece.
Meanwhile, the Fitch ratings agency decided to downgrade Greece's credit rating two notches
amidst anxieties that the country will be unable to solve its financial farrago without assistance from
external parties. The downgrade was significant since Greece was now at risk of losing its
investment grade status, at least according to Fitch. Greece retains marginally higher ratings with
Moody's and Standard and Poor's. Earlier, Portugal's credit rating was also downgraded by the
Fitch ratings agency over concerns regarding its debt woes. Ironically, the move by Fitch came
weeks after Portugal passed an austerity budget aimed at reducing its high budget deficit. At the
broader level, the decision to downgrade the credit ratings of both Greece and Portugal, along with
attention on the possible rescue package for Greece, renewed anxieties about the problem of
heavily indebted economies across the continent.
The situation in these European countries -- specifically on their debt burdens -- has focused
attention concomitantly on the European Union where countries of the euro zone share currency
but not economic policies, and whose collective fates would be affected by a devalued euro.
Indeed, the euro itself has seen its value slide as a result of rising economic anxieties, and questions
have once again surfaced regarding its viability.
Last Resort:
By late March 2010, a proposal was advanced to address Greece's debt crisis. The rescue package
proposal was intended to be a last resort for Greece, should that country fail to borrow sufficient
funds under normal conditions. It would require all euro zone countries to vote unanimously to
fund individual loans to Greece, although not all countries would be required to contribute. No
actual dollar amount was specified for the possible rescue package although there were suggestions
that it would be valued at around 22 billion euro, with the lion's share of the funding being derived
from the European Union (EU), and a small remained from the International Monetary Fund
(IMF).
France Review 2016
France
On April 10, 2010, euro zone countries agreed to fund up to 30 billion euros -- above the amount
originally envisioned -- in emergency loans for debt-hit Greece. The price of the loans would be
about five percent and in line with IMF formulas. The loans would not be activated by the euro
zone; instead, it would be up to Greece to decide whether or not to avail itself of the funds, which
would be co-financed by the IMF, although to what degree was unknown. For its part, Greece has
said it does not want to go down the road of such loans, preferring to auction treasury bills. Greece
was hoping that the very notion of an EU-IMF rescue package would ease volatile markets and
advance an economic recovery, without actually having to activate the loans. However, such a path
was viewed as potentially unavoidable, given the fact that Greece has no choice but to finance its
debt obligations. As well, there have been the wider considerations at play -- that is, the impact on
markets across Europe and the confidence in the euro.
By the close of April 2010, Greece officially requested that the EU-IMF "last resort" loan package
be activated in order to deal with its debt-ridden economy and to prevent the unacceptable
outcome of default by a sovereign European country. The EU and IMF responded by noting that
they believed the details of the rescue plan could be worked through quickly. That being said, since
much of the funding for the package would go through the EU, several euro zone countries will
have to ratify the use of funds. For example, France would have to garner parliamentary approval
for its contribution to Greece's rescue package. In Germany, where -- as discussed above -- the
political ramifications of such a plan were expected to be pronounced -- German Chancellor Angela
Merkel warned there would be "very strict conditions" attached to her country's contribution of
assistance. As well, it was still to be determined how much the IMF would itself finance, along
with interest rates by both the IMF and EU. With such hurdles yet to be crossed, it was unlikely
that Greece would be in receipt of the much-needed funds until the second week of May 2010.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister George Papandreou expressed confidence in the path going forward.
Speaking from the Aegean island of Kastellorizo, he said: "Our partners will decisively contribute to
provide Greece the safe harbor that will allow us to rebuild our ship." But the Greek people were
not easily assuaged by these words or the EU-IMF rescue package. Instead, they were still railing
against the austerity measures enacted by the Greek government with tens of thousands of Greek
civil servants taking to the streets to participate in mass strike.
Junk Status:
Further reluctance by Germany to fund the largest portion of the rescue package for Greece did
not help the situation. In fact, with Greece acknowledging that it cannot service its forthcoming
debt obligations without the EU-IMF loan, plus the realization that German funds will likely not
come quickly, there were escalating fears that Greece could well default by May 19, 2010 -- a
significant deadline when billions in bond payments would be due. Although Greek Finance
Minister George Papaconstantinou insisted his country would "absolutely and without any doubt"
service that debt, prevailing anxieties led another credit rating downgrade for Greece. Indeed,
France Review 2016
France
Standard and Poor’s downgraded Greece's credit rating to junk status. That move, in addition to a
slight downgrade to Portugal's debt on the basis of heightened risks, renewed attention to euro
zone stability.
Update on Euro Crisis:
In May 2010, the European Union (EU) agreed on a euro stability package valued at 500 billion
euros, aimed at preventing the aforementioned Greek debt crisis from deleteriously affecting other
countries in the region. Countries within the EU's euro zone would be provided access to loans
worth 440 billion euros and emergency funding of 60 billion euros from the EU. As well, the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) would earmark an additional 250 billion euros. The European
Commission would raise the funds in capital markets, using guarantees from the governments of
member states, for the purpose of lending it to countries in economic crisis.
In addition, it was announced that the European Central Bank (ECB) was prepared to participate in
exceptional market intervention measures, such as the purchase of euro zone government bonds,
for the purpose of shoring up the value and viability of the euro currency.
These moves were aimed at defending the euro, which has seen its value drop precipitously as a
result of the Greek debt crisis has gone on, and as anxieties have increased that a similarly
disastrous fate could spread to other EU member states, such as Portugal, Spain, Italy and even
Ireland. These mostly southern European economies were plagued not only by high deficits but
also inherent structural economic weakness.
But even these overtures, as drastic as they might appear, would do little to address Europe's
soaring public debt, according to some economic analysts. Indeed, among this core of economists,
the argument resided that this rescue package could actually exacerbate the situation. Of concern
has been the collective impact of low economic growth, high unemployment, and governments
unwilling to take requisite austerity measures to not only decrease spending but also increase
productivity. Rather than relying on heavy government spending to spur growth, governments in
euro zone countries have opted to decrease their debt levels -- or at least to make the promise of
moving in that direction. However, another core of economic analysts has argued that too much
debt reduction -- without government stimulus -- could itself stymie economic growth. To this
latter end, Daniel Gros of the Center for European Policy Studies warned that "the patient is dead
before he can get up and walk."
Meanwhile, the economic crisis in Europe was spreading to the domestic political sphere in
Germany. With the German cabinet of Chancellor Merkel poised to approve that country's part in
the euro rescue deal, German voters issued a punishing blow to Merkel's conservatives in the state
elections in North Rhine-Westphalia. The voters' reaction appeared to register discontent over the
German federal government's decision. Germans, according to polling data, were already incensed
over funding of the bailout plan for Greece. That separate package was also approved by the
France Review 2016
France
government and parliament.
Special Entry 3
The Greek debt crisis; effects on the euro zone, and the establishment of the European Financial
Stability Facility
In recent years, a debt crisis has raged across the euro zone countries of the European Union
(EU). In 2010, Greece stood as "ground zero" of the crisis, evoking deep anxieties about that
country defaulting on its debt. Anxieties also increased that a similarly disastrous fate could spread
to other EU member states, such as Portugal, Spain, Italy and even Ireland. These mostly
southern European economies were plagued not only by high deficits but also inherent structural
economic weakness, which could affect other countries in the euro zone in something of a
contagion.
To stave off such a possibility, in 2010, the EU, in concert with the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), agreed on a euro stability package, aimed at preventing the Greek debt crisis from
deleteriously affecting other countries in the region. In addition, the European Central Bank (ECB)
was prepared to participate in exceptional market intervention measures, such as the purchase of
euro zone government bonds, for the purpose of shoring up the value and viability of the euro
currency.
A year later in 2011, the Greek debt crisis was ongoing and Athens was in negotiations with the EU
and the IMF to receive another tranche of its rescue package. Given the concerns about Greece's
"highly uncertain growth prospects," as well as the prevailing burden of debt servicing and ultimate
solvency, attention refocused on strategies to address the crisis. One option that surfaced was the
restructuring of Greece's debt. In addition, there was the need for subsequent rescue loans for
Greece.
In mid-July 2011, at an emergency euro zone summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel cast the
notion of another rescue package for Greece in some degree of doubt when she said that there
would be no "spectacular" measures aimed at resolving Greece's debt crisis, such as the
restructuring of Greek debt. The German chancellor made it clear that there needed to be a
concrete plan for a second Greek rescue package, if there was any hope that the debt crisis in that
country would be prevented from spreading across the euro zone. Ultimately, though, concurrence
was reached on July 21, 2011, with a rescue package plan. The plan provides for the Germanyendorsed position that private lenders, including banks, would have to do their part in contributing
to the package. Any measures that would allow Greece easier repayment terms could be viewed
by credit rating agencies as acknowledgment that its borrowing was unsustainable -- and
therefore, "partial default."
France Review 2016
France
rescue package and there was speculation that a second rescue package might be needed before the
country could be cleared to return to capital markets. In Italy, that country was also dealing
with economic challenges regarding stunted growth and an inability to reduce its dangerously high
debt-to-GDP ratios -- one of the worst in the euro zone at 120 percent. In Italy's case, the notion
of a rescue package was impossibly unaffordable, and raised expectation that Italy would not
escape default. Spain was in a similar situation and was hoping that its austerity program (like the
one being implemented in Italy) would help that country navigate its difficult economic waters.
General expectations were that Spain might barely escape default because its debt-to-GDP ratio -while poor -- was still better than that of Italy.
With the international community concerned about Europe's ability to solve its sovereign debt
crisis, and the fear of financial contagion spreading across highly-indebted fellow euro zone
member states, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were
scheduled to meet on Aug. 16, 2011. The two European leaders were expected to discuss the
situation and to work on effectively managing the euro zone. The decision for the two leaders to
meet came as financial markets reacted negatively to the climate of insecurity sweeping over
Europe. It was clear that investors had doubts about the ability of European governments to deal
with the debt crisis, despite the funding of several rescue packages to the most imperiled
economies of the euro zone.
Hopes for a comprehensive plan to address the situation were dashed after the meeting when the
two European leaders emerged from the meeting and stressed the need for "true economic
governance" for the euro zone. Merkel and Sarkozy championed closer economic and fiscal policy
in the euro zone, such as the notion of budget measures included in the constitutions of euro zone
member states. They called for a tax on financial transactions to raise more revenues. Investors
reacted to these declarations by deeming them insufficient, and with economic analysts dismissing
the plan as a missed opportunity. In fact, there had been warnings that Germany's demands for
austerity would do little to aid in the thrust for economic recovery across Europe.
By the close of September 2011, the Bundestag, or lower house of parliament in Germany
approved the expansion of a rescue fund for Europe's heavily indebted countries, known as the
European Financial Stability Facility. The issue has been an extremely contentious one, with the
participants of the global economy anxious for action to be taken in response to the debt crisis, but
with German stakeholders incensed that they would be the major contributors to the rescue fund
that would benefit countries, such as Greece. Indeed, the debt crisis in Europe has led to instability
in the international markets and political imbroglios across the euro zone.
As Europe’s largest economy, Germany's ratification of the rescue fund for the euro zone was a
crucial step on the road to stabilization. The scenario evoked political ramification for German
Chancellor Angela Merkel; while Chancellor Merkel received the necessary support in the
parliament to approve the bailout fund, the measure left her ruling coalition weakened and could
France Review 2016
France
well negatively affect her grip on power in Germany in the future.
Regardless of the domestic political ramifications, the German ratification of the expansion of the
European Financial Stability Facility breathed necessary life into the euro stabilization entity. With
Austria and Finland also reaching agreements on the matter, only Slovakia was left to approve the
measure. In the case of Austria, the approval in that country's parliament came after vituperative
debate, with strong disapproval emanating from the right wing of that Austrian parliament. In
Finland, approval required more than debate for passage. Finland was seeking collateral as security
for its contribution to the euro zone bailout fund, which Greece -- as the main beneficiary -- agreed
to provide. With this agreement forged, Finland agreed to withdraw its objections and move
forward.
But concurrence on the expansion of the European Financial Stability Facility from Slovakia was
not expected to come easily. Instead, one member of the coalition government warned that it
would block approval in that country. In a nod to Slovaks who eschew the notion of a less
wealthy Central European country having to pay for the mistakes of the more wealthy Greeks, the
Freedom and Solidarity Party of Slovakia -- a participant in Prime Minister Radicova's coalition
government -- had promised to oppose the move. With Slovakia positioned to be the main holdout
in a scheme intended to stabilize the entire euro zone, there were high hopes for a compromise.
Nevertheless, on Oct. 11, 2011, the parliament of Slovakia voted down the euro zone bailout
expansion plan. Since the vote was also linked to a confidence motion, the center-right
government of Prime Minister Iveta Radicova was also toppled in the vote, making the Slovakian
government the latest political casualty in the economic debt crisis rocking Europe. A new vote
took place two days later, and with support from the left wing opposition, the proposed expansion
of the euro zone rescue fund was ratified, and a schedule for snap elections was secured.
Meanwhile, representatives of the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, and the
European Central Bank, were set to review Greece's progress in reducing debt levels, and to make
a decision on the release of the latest installment of bailout funds for that country. However,
before a decision could be made, the finance ministers from the euro zone put the metaphoric
"brakes" on the decision-making. After hours of talks in Luxembourg, the finance ministers from
the 17-nation euro zone urged Greece to take on greater austerity measures and warned that banks
in region should prepare for further challenges.
With a delay on the decision on releasing the latest tranche of bailout funds for Greece, it was yet
to be seen if the IMF, EU, and ECB would ultimately recommend the release of bailout funds for
Greece. Some deadlines of significance included mid-October 2011, when the decision would
finally be made, and the actual release of funds to come (pending approval) at the close of October
2011. However, the current scenario suggested that Greece might not receive its needed
installment of rescue funds until November 2011. To that end, as October 2011 entered its final
week, finance ministers of the euro zone finally approved the tranche of rescue funds needed for
France Review 2016
France
Greece to escape disastrous default. The International Monetary Fund would also have to sign off
on the release of the bail out money, but all expectations were that Athens would receive the
much-needed funds by mid-November 2011.
In the backdrop of these developments have been fears that a Greek default could spark another
banking crisis. The sense of anxiety was only exacerbated by news that the Franco-Belgian bank,
Dexia, was in emergency talks, and that the credit ratings agency, Moody's, was considering
downgrading the bank due to exposure to Greek debt.
Should Greece fail to service its debt commitments, there would be deleterious effects for the euro
zone, European banks, and at the international level, there could be a seriously damaging influence
on the global economy. Chairman of the euro zone finance ministers (known as the euro group),
Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg, foreclosed the possibility of a debt default
by Greece, while simultaneously warning that Greece's private sector creditors should anticipate
further losses on their Greek sovereign debt holdings – indeed, greater than the 21 percent
"haircut" that was previously agreed upon months earlier.
It should be noted that there was a growing chorus of complaints about the slow and protracted
political response to the debt crisis and concomitant euro zone challenges, which was largely due to
the EU's institutional structure. As October 2011 entered its second week, French President
Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel were pledging to do whatever was
necessary to protect European banks from the debt crisis. That plan included the recapitalizing of
European banks. The two European leaders also agreed to a plan that would amend the euro
zone's operational structure to avoid the challenges detailed above. Notably, there would be
accelerated economic coordination in the euro zone. Moreover, President Sarkozy and Chancellor
Merkel concurred on addressing Greece's debt problems, and the need to restore market
confidence.
By the start of December 2011, the leaders of the two biggest players in the euro zone -- French
President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel -- issued a joint call for serious
changes to Europe’s governing treaties, aimed at ameliorated economic governance for the 17
countries that make up the euro currency bloc. French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor
Merkel met for talks on the matter in Paris as the euro zone countries continue to grapple with the
regional debt crisis, emanating from Greece but extending across the euro bloc.
Included in their proposal were: (1) the creation of a monetary fund for Europe, (2) automatic
penalties for countries that exceed European deficit limits, and (3) monthly meetings of European
leaders. The proposal entailed compromises by both European leaders. President Sarkozy had to
accept the notion of automatic sanctions for countries in violation of debt limit rules, while
Chancellor Merkel had to accept that the European Court of Justice will not be empowered with
the power of veto over budgets. Meanwhile, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which
was intended to replace the European Financial Stability Facility in 2013, would be advanced
France Review 2016
France
earlier in 2012.
President Sarkozy said that they were looking to March 2012 to complete negotiations on the new
treaty. Ideally, the new treaty would be ratified by all 27 member states of the European Union.
However, if concurrence at that level proved impossible, then the 17 states of the euro zone would
have to approve it. It should also be noted that European Council President Herman Van Rompuy
has said that tougher budget rules for the euro zone may not require changing any existing
European Union treaties. To that
President Sarkozy emphasized the imperative that such a crisis not re-emerge in the future. He
said, "We are conscious of the gravity of the situation and of the responsibility that rests on our
shoulders." For her part, Chancellor Merkel said her country, working in concert with France, was
"absolutely determined" to maintain a stable euro. She also advocated for "structural changes
which go beyond agreements."
While the new measures would certainly go a long way to addressing the issue of improved
economic governance in the euro zone, they did not deal with the question of how many euro zone
countries would deal with their debt challenges in a climate of low growth. Nevertheless, in the
short run, the steadfast and unified message of intent by the two European leaders was, at least.
expected to calm markets and facilitate lower borrowing costs for debt-ridden economies such as
Italy, Spain, and Portugal.
***
Meanwhile, on Dec. 5, 2011, the credit ratings agency, Standard and Poor's, placed the countries
of the euro zone on a "credit watch" with negative implications. Even power house economies of
Germany and France were included in the move, which presaged a downgrade to come in the
future. A day later, Standard and Poor's even warned that the euro zone bailout fund -- the
European Financial Stability Facility -- could lose its own AAA rating. These moves have raised
eyebrows across the world as regards the credibility of the ratings agency, which failed to warn the
world of the sub-prime meltdown in 2008 that ultimately let to the global financial crisis. There
were suggestions that this downgrade threat to euro zone countries, in conjunction with the
downgrade of the United States months earlier following a particularly ferocious debt ceiling debate
in that country, were evidence that the credit ratings agency was trying to "save face" by proving
its tougher standards at this time. However, Standard and Poor's newly-discovered hard-line
stance was being questioned by analysts, who pointed to the timing of the warning against euro
zone countries. Indeed, this warning came precisely at a time when France and Germany were
leading the charge in the European Union to solve the regional debt crisis, which has left the euro
vulnerable, risked fragmenting the currency union, and which could yet imperil the fragile global
economic recovery.
France Review 2016
France
On Jan. 13, 2012, the credit ratings agency, Standard & Poor’s, stripped France of its sterling AAA
credit rating, relegating France to AA+ status. Another ratings agency, Moody's, however, moved
to maintain France's AAA rating, although it warned that France's deteriorating debt position
placed pressure on the country's stable outlook. French authorities appeared to respond to the
news with equanimity.
French Finance Minister Francois Baroin said, "It's not good news, but it's not a catastrophe." He
also noted that the French government had no plans to enact either spending cuts or tax increases
in response to the downgrade. Finance Minister Francois Baroin said, "It's not ratings agencies that
decide French policy."
The ratings agency also downgraded Austria from its top notch AAA rating to AA+. The reduction
on Austria's rating was partially attributable to the fact that it exports to Italy which is dealing with
a recession, and that its banking subsidiaries in Hungary were facing losses.
Standard & Poor’s downgraded Italy two notches from A to BBB+ Spain was in somewhat better
shape than Italy although it was downgraded two notches from AA- to A. Slovakia was cut one
notch from A+ to A. Slovenia was also cut one notch from AA- to A+. Following this trend,
Malta was additionally cut one notch from A to A-.
Standard & Poor's, meanwhile, cut the credit of Portugal from BBB- to BB and Cyprus from
BBB to BB+ -- junk status in both cases.
Belgium held steady with an AA rating, Estonia had no change to its AA- rating, and there was no
shift from Ireland's BBB+ rating.
Germany, Finland, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands appeared to have escaped downgraded and
held on to their AAA ratings.
As regards the status of the euro zone, Standard & Poor's also downgraded the European Union
bailout fund -- the European Financial Stability Facility's (EFSF) -- from AAA to AA+. It should be
noted that the decision to downgrade the EFSF was in keeping with the collective downgrades of
individual European countries discussed above, since the rating is based on the ratings of the
countries that guarantee the bailout fund. Should the EFSF obtain additional guarantees, it could
recapture its AAA rating.
These developments made several countries the latest casualties in the ongoing sovereign debt
crisis affecting Europe, and particularly, the countries of the euro zone. For its part, Standard &
Poor's explained that it had taken these measures in response to the failed attempts by the leaders
of the euro zone to deal with the ongoing debt crisis. Standard & Poor's released a statement that
read as follows: "Today's rating actions are primarily driven by our assessment that the policy
initiatives that have been taken by European policy makers in recent weeks may be insufficient to
France Review 2016
France
fully address ongoing systemic stresses in the euro zone."
The credit ratings agency went further and accused euro zone leaders of being unable to properly
diagnose the causes of the crisis. Specifically, Standard & Poor's argued that the plan being
advanced by leaders of the euro zone -- to limit governments' future borrowing -- was based upon
an inaccurate understanding of the debt crisis. Standard & Poor's contention was that the
challenge was not so much excessive borrowing, as much as it involved trade deficits and a loss of
competitiveness by certain euro zone economies, including Italy and Spain.
Euro zone deal attempts to shore up European financial system
In late June 2012, the 17 members of the euro zone moved more quickly to reach an agreement to
shore up the European financial system and recapitalize the banking sector. According to newlyelected French President Francois Hollande, Spain and Italy initially refused to sign onto the
stability and growth pact valued at 120 euro -- something he demanded -- until an agreement of the
Euro bloc was reached.
Now, the euro zone rescue funds would be directly used to recapitalize the banking sector. Tax
payers from European countries would collectively fund the euro zone rescue funds, which would
be used to augment financial entities in certain member states. In effect, it was a step on the path
towards a euro zone banking union.
Stated in practical terms, European governments would now allow their two emergency funds, the
European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), to
purchase debt directly from banks, effectively preventing them from collapsing and reducing the
cost of borrowing because of reduced risk. Clearly, the agreement would have serious implications
for countries such as Spain and Italy, which are under grave pressure due to the high costs of
borrowing.
The agreement was reached when German Chancellor Angela Merkel realized that she stood alone
in her opposition to the notion of euro bonds. She only agree to make concessions on this matter
pending the institution of key safeguards, including the establishment of "a single supervisory
mechanism" regulating from the center.
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Nominal GDP (LCU
billions)
2,059.28
2,086.93
2,116.56
2,132.45
2,177.50
Nominal GDP Growth Rate
(%)
3.042
1.342
1.420
0.7505
2.113
Consumption (LCU billions)
1,147.93
1,161.73
1,175.88
1,183.32
1,214.67
Government Expenditure
(LCU billions)
486.142
497.584
507.998
515.886
529.554
Gross Capital Formation
(LCU billions)
477.972
472.626
472.026
472.482
472.148
Exports of Goods &
Services (LCU billions)
572.553
595.230
603.241
611.812
653.429
Imports of Goods &
Services (LCU billions)
625.312
640.240
642.582
651.051
692.297
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Population, total
(million)
63.070
63.376
63.652
63.920
64.213
Population growth
(%)
0.4859
0.4852
0.4355
0.4210
0.4584
Nominal GDP per
Capita (LCU 1000s)
32,650.77
32,929.33
33,252.14
33,361.22
33,910.66
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Real Gross Domestic
Product (LCU billions 2005
base)
2,040.03
2,043.76
2,057.17
2,060.87
2,084.77
Real GDP Growth Rate (%)
2.079
0.1833
0.6561
0.1799
1.160
GDP Deflator (2005=100.0)
100.944
102.112
102.887
103.473
104.448
Inflation, GDP Deflator (%)
0.9440
1.157
0.7590
0.5696
0.9423
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Government Fiscal
Budget (billions)
1,151.54
1,186.02
1,207.10
1,226.41
1,241.48
Fiscal Budget Growth
Rate (percentage)
2.085
2.995
1.778
1.599
1.229
National Tax Rate Net of
Transfers (%)
50.822
52.018
52.949
53.537
53.238
Government Revenues
Net of Transfers (LCU
billions)
1,046.58
1,085.57
1,120.70
1,141.65
1,159.26
Government Surplus(-)
Deficit(+) (LCU billions)
-104.9610
-100.4480
-86.3970
-84.7570
-82.2230
Government Surplus(+)
Deficit(-) (%GDP)
-5.0970
-4.8132
-4.0819
-3.9746
-3.7760
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Money and Quasi-Money
(M2) (LCU billions)
1,847.81
1,888.18
1,855.25
1,914.59
1,955.05
Money Supply Growth Rate
(%)
2.882
2.185
-1.7442
3.199
2.113
Lending Interest Rate (%)
5.397
5.425
5.373
5.348
6.046
Unemployment Rate (%)
9.142
9.742
10.267
10.308
10.180
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Official Exchange Rate
(LCU/$US)
0.7187
0.7779
0.7529
0.7525
0.8988
Trade Balance NIPA ($US
billions)
-73.4093
-57.8637
-52.2510
-52.1424
-43.2435
Trade Balance % of GDP
-2.5620
-2.1568
-1.8587
-1.8401
-1.7850
Total Foreign Exchange
Reserves ($US billions)
168.490
184.522
145.161
143.977
138.911
France Review 2016
France
Data in US Dollars
Data in US Dollars
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Nominal GDP ($US billions)
2,865.30
2,682.90
2,811.13
2,833.69
2,422.65
Exports ($US billions)
796.655
765.212
801.198
813.001
726.992
Imports ($US billions)
870.064
823.076
853.449
865.144
770.236
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Petroleum
Consumption
(TBPD)
1,784.56
1,745.14
1,719.56
1,659.78
1,679.94
Petroleum
Production
(TBPD)
75.891
65.256
62.124
60.031
59.167
Petroleum
Net Exports
(TBPD)
-1708.6743
-1679.8823
-1657.4401
-1599.7449
-1620.7770
Natural Gas
Consumption
(bcf)
1,670.05
1,522.96
1,545.67
1,263.08
1,332.14
Natural Gas
Production
(bcf)
21.917
18.920
11.996
0.6267
0.6484
Natural Gas
Net Exports
(bcf)
-1648.1297
-1504.0398
-1533.6705
-1262.4496
-1331.4882
Coal
Consumption
(1000s st)
17,191.65
19,015.97
20,305.10
15,222.31
15,485.22
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Coal
Production
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Coal Net
Exports
(1000s st)
-17191.6480
-19015.9733
-20305.0957
-15222.3092
-15485.2233
Nuclear
Production
(bil kwh)
423.509
407.438
405.792
417.476
415.484
Hydroelectric
Production
(bil kwh)
44.343
58.130
70.600
63.348
66.516
Renewables
Production
(bil kwh)
21.951
24.646
26.546
29.342
32.277
(1000s st)
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Petroleum Consumption (Quads)
3.810
3.726
3.672
3.544
3.587
Petroleum Production (Quads)
0.1620
0.1403
0.1331
0.1311
0.1010
Petroleum Net Exports (Quads)
-3.6485
-3.5860
-3.5386
-3.4129
-3.4861
Natural Gas Consumption
(Quads)
1.703
1.553
1.577
1.288
1.359
Natural Gas Production (Quads)
0.0223
0.0192
0.0122
0.0006
0.0006
Natural Gas Net Exports (Quads)
-1.6811
-1.5342
-1.5644
-1.2877
-1.3582
Coal Consumption (Quads)
0.3438
0.3803
0.4061
0.3044
0.3097
Coal Production (Quads)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Coal Net Exports (Quads)
-0.3438
-0.3803
-0.4061
-0.3044
-0.3097
Nuclear Production (Quads)
4.235
4.074
4.058
4.175
4.155
Hydroelectric Production (Quads)
0.4434
0.5813
0.7060
0.6335
0.6652
Renewables Production (Quads)
0.2195
0.2465
0.2655
0.2934
0.3228
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Petroleum-WTI ($/bbl)
95.054
94.159
97.943
93.112
48.709
Natural Gas-Henry Hub ($/mmbtu)
3.999
2.752
3.729
4.369
2.614
Coal Thermal-Australian ($/mt)
121.448
96.364
84.562
70.130
57.511
France Review 2016
France
CO2 Emissions
CO2 Emissions
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Petroleum Based (mm mt C)
85.130
83.249
82.029
79.177
80.139
Natural Gas Based (mm mt C)
27.095
24.709
25.077
20.492
21.613
Coal Based (mm mt C)
9.853
10.898
11.637
8.724
8.875
Total CO2 Emissions (mm mt
C)
122.078
118.856
118.743
108.394
110.627
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Corn Total
Consumption
(1000 metric
tons)
10,148.42
9,749.12
9,288.03
9,728.53
9,728.53
Corn
Production
(1000 metric
tons)
15,883.80
15,566.61
14,969.76
1,882.54
1,754.54
Corn Net
Exports
(1000 metric
tons)
5,735.38
5,817.49
5,681.73
-7845.9824
-7973.9828
Soybeans
Total
Consumption
(1000 metric
tons)
759.992
713.190
617.872
731.515
640.321
Soybeans
Production
(1000 metric
tons)
122.682
103.747
109.610
223.585
210.643
Soybeans
Net Exports
(1000 metric
tons)
-637.3104
-609.4434
-508.2618
-507.9292
-429.6773
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Rice Total
Consumption
(1000 metric
tons)
133.927
127.422
89.462
80.750
70.613
Rice
Production
(1000 metric
tons)
128.387
123.198
81.964
83.367
77.854
Rice Net
Exports
(1000 metric
tons)
-5.5406
-4.2235
-7.4975
2.617
7.241
Coffee Total
Consumption
(metric tons)
245,503.00
247,646.00
233,120.00
225,697.60
207,897.00
Coffee
Production
(metric tons)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Coffee Net
Exports
(metric tons)
-245503.0000
-247646.0000
-233120.0000
-225697.6047
-207897.0048
Cocoa Beans
Total
Consumption
(metric tons)
144,484.00
121,190.00
118,575.00
112,604.42
113,798.24
Cocoa Beans
Production
(metric tons)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-144484.0000
-121190.0000
-118575.0000
-112604.4243
-113798.2384
Cocoa Beans
Net Exports
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Wheat Total
Consumption
(1000 metric
tons)
16,167.48
24,116.64
19,287.00
20,026.76
16,515.00
Wheat
Production
(1000 metric
tons)
35,914.04
40,514.14
38,553.42
39,095.09
34,065.64
Wheat Net
Exports
(1000 metric
tons)
19,746.56
16,397.50
19,266.42
19,068.33
17,550.64
(metric tons)
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Corn Pricing Summary
($/metric ton)
291.684
298.417
259.389
192.881
169.750
Soybeans Pricing Summary
($/metric ton)
540.667
591.417
538.417
491.771
390.417
Rice Pricing Summary ($/metric
ton)
458.558
525.071
473.989
425.148
386.033
Coffee Pricing Summary
($/kilogram)
5.976
4.111
3.076
4.424
3.526
Cocoa Beans Pricing Summary
($/kilogram)
2.980
2.392
2.439
3.062
3.135
Wheat Pricing Summary
($/metric ton)
316.264
313.242
312.248
284.895
203.177
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Copper
Consumption
(1000 mt)
180,426.14
173,843.98
197,014.94
201,535.85
172,166.03
Copper
Production
(1000 mt)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Copper Net
Exports
(1000 mt)
-180426.1430
-173843.9760
-197014.9350
-201535.8530
-172166.0295
Zinc
Consumption
(1000 mt)
242,265.06
236,721.20
231,485.84
184,778.32
162,918.55
Zinc
Production
(1000 mt)
162,736.45
159,481.93
151,163.61
147,197.75
141,148.53
Zinc Exports
(1000 mt)
-79528.6080
-77239.2653
-80322.2370
-37580.5664
-21770.0134
Lead
Consumption
(1000 mt)
78,830.54
67,923.09
66,532.74
75,588.80
62,410.71
Lead
Production
(1000 mt)
79,383.63
82,217.39
70,609.32
73,218.77
68,174.08
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Lead Exports
(1000 mt)
553.092
14,294.30
4,076.58
-2370.0220
5,763.37
Tin
Consumption
(1000 mt)
4,918.80
4,467.15
4,505.01
5,125.67
4,667.52
Tin
Production
(1000 mt)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Tin Exports
(1000 mt)
-4918.8040
-4467.1460
-4505.0130
-5125.6742
-4667.5208
Nickel
Consumption
(1000 mt)
29,903.93
29,372.49
22,861.64
29,506.54
23,293.58
Nickel
Production
(1000 mt)
13,630.17
13,075.54
13,289.95
13,385.61
12,536.09
Nickel
Exports
(1000 mt)
-16273.7579
-16296.9548
-9571.6819
-16120.9262
-10757.4889
Gold
Consumption
(kg)
77,653.68
74,184.94
95,642.17
107,499.55
92,765.05
Gold
Production
(kg)
55,022.92
56,684.35
58,504.21
62,332.44
60,179.14
Gold Exports
(kg)
-22630.7575
-17500.5889
-37137.9545
-45167.1014
-32585.9069
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Silver
Consumption
(mt)
396,364.00
238,803.00
260,594.00
367,524.00
297,578.86
Silver
Production
(mt)
303,973.84
318,949.46
324,105.92
335,408.15
308,248.95
Silver
Exports (mt)
-92390.1619
80,146.46
63,511.92
-32115.8502
10,670.09
France Review 2016
France
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Copper ($/mt)
8,828.19
7,962.35
7,332.10
6,863.40
5,510.46
Zinc ($/mt)
2,193.90
1,950.41
1,910.26
2,160.97
1,931.68
Tin ($/mt)
26,053.68
21,125.99
22,282.80
21,898.87
16,066.63
Lead ($/mt)
2,400.81
2,064.64
2,139.79
2,095.46
1,787.82
Nickel ($/mt)
22,910.36
17,547.55
15,031.80
16,893.38
11,862.64
Gold ($/oz)
1,569.21
1,669.52
1,411.46
1,265.58
1,160.66
Silver ($/oz)
35.224
31.137
23.850
19.071
15.721
France Review 2016
France
The Economic Performance rankings are calculated by CountryWatch's editorial team, and are
based on criteria including sustained economic growth, monetary stability, current account deficits,
budget surplus, unemployment and structural imbalances. Scores are assessed from 0 to 100 using
this aforementioned criteria as well as CountryWatch's proprietary economic research data and
models.
Bank
stability
risk
Monetary/
Currency
stability
Government
Finances
Empl./
Unempl.
Econ.GNP
growth or
decline/
forecast
0 - 100
0 - 100
0 - 100
0 - 100
%
North Americas
Canada
92
69
35
38
3.14%
United States
94
76
4
29
3.01%
Austria
90
27
30
63
1.33%
Belgium
88
27
19
23
1.15%
Cyprus
81
91
16
80
-0.69%
Denmark
97
70
45
78
1.20%
Finland
89
27
41
33
1.25%
Western Europe
France Review 2016
France
France
87
27
18
27
1.52%
Germany
86
27
22
21
1.25%
Greece
79
27
5
24
-2.00%
Iceland
90
17
2
34
-3.04%
Italy
85
27
37
24
0.84%
Ireland
92
27
11
10
-1.55%
Luxembourg
99
27
28
66
2.08%
Malta
77
27
41
51
0.54%
Netherlands
91
27
26
74
1.30%
Norway
98
44
10
76
1.08%
Portugal
77
27
13
20
0.29%
Spain
83
27
9
3
-0.41%
Sweden
94
72
54
32
1.23%
Switzerland
97
86
55
77
1.53%
United Kingdom
85
12
9
37
1.34%
Albania
44
60
33
6
2.30%
Armenia
45
59
49
30
1.80%
Central and
Eastern Europe
France Review 2016
France
Azerbaijan
56
4
84
99
2.68%
Belarus
59
21
83
98
2.41%
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
34
68
69
N/A
0.50%
Bulgaria
58
75
88
49
0.20%
Croatia
69
68
94
9
0.18%
Czech Republic
80
89
29
70
1.67%
Estonia
72
90
66
92
0.80%
Georgia
36
60
53
56
2.00%
Hungary
70
66
26
54
-0.16%
Latvia
67
100
65
44
-3.97%
Lithuania
65
91
87
79
-1.65%
Macedonia (FYR)
53
69
56
2
2.03%
Moldova
23
36
81
67
2.50%
Poland
74
74
38
12
2.72%
Romania
62
56
70
62
0.75%
Russia
73
18
90
8
4.00%
Serbia
48
49
52
5
1.97%
France Review 2016
France
Montenegro
39
27
73
1
-1.70%
Slovak Republic
80
62
30
14
4.06%
Slovenia
81
27
36
65
1.12%
Ukraine
41
11
57
N/A
3.68%
Algeria
57
18
96
7
4.55%
Angola
49
1
97
N/A
7.05%
Benin
19
91
20
N/A
3.22%
Botswana
68
58
76
N/A
6.33%
Burkina Faso
16
91
13
N/A
4.41%
Burundi
2
91
6
N/A
3.85%
Cameroon
26
91
91
N/A
2.58%
Cape Verde
52
87
4
N/A
4.96%
Central African
Republic
9
91
32
N/A
3.18%
Chad
22
91
89
N/A
4.42%
Congo
52
87
87
N/A
12.13%
Côte d’Ivoire
25
91
82
28
2.98%
Africa
Dem. Republic
France Review 2016
France
Congo
4
91
47
N/A
5.44%
Djibouti
31
76
50
N/A
4.47%
Egypt
37
20
24
69
5.01%
Equatorial Guinea
82
91
85
N/A
0.94%
Eritrea
1
3
1
18
1.81%
Ethiopia
6
45
8
N/A
6.96%
Gabon
64
91
96
N/A
5.36%
Gambia
8
48
86
N/A
4.82%
Ghana
9
11
69
N/A
4.50%
Guinea
10
7
91
N/A
3.03%
Guinea-Bissau
5
91
46
N/A
3.47%
Kenya
20
41
59
N/A
4.11%
Lesotho
13
40
12
N/A
2.98%
Liberia
12
73
74
N/A
5.92%
Libya
73
2
94
N/A
5.22%
Madagascar
4
22
24
N/A
-1.02%
Malawi
7
25
55
N/A
5.96%
Mali
20
91
82
N/A
5.12%
France Review 2016
France
Mauritania
15
13
93
N/A
4.58%
Mauritius
65
52
56
55
4.10%
Morocco
37
72
48
26
3.23%
Mozambique
12
23
71
N/A
6.45%
Namibia
40
39
62
N/A
1.70%
Niger
10
91
21
N/A
4.41%
Nigeria
30
6
61
N/A
6.98%
Rwanda
21
40
68
N/A
5.39%
Sao Tome &
Principe
1
61
100
N/A
3.40%
Senegal
24
91
63
N/A
3.44%
Seychelles
60
67
97
N/A
4.01%
Sierra Leone
5
10
39
N/A
4.77%
Somalia
2
38
59
N/A
3.19%
South Africa
61
37
70
N/A
2.59%
Sudan
16
5
73
N/A
5.52%
Swaziland
32
44
79
N/A
1.09%
Tanzania
15
45
32
N/A
6.17%
Togo
8
91
92
N/A
2.56%
France Review 2016
France
Tunisia
50
61
44
39
4.00%
Uganda
11
17
54
N/A
5.59%
Zambia
29
20
49
N/A
5.84%
Zimbabwe
0
8
16
N/A
2.24%
Argentina
66
3
80
36
3.50%
Belize
47
76
80
N/A
1.00%
Bolivia
32
51
61
81
3.99%
Brazil
71
47
78
11
5.50%
Chile
78
25
92
73
4.72%
Columbia
47
52
34
47
2.25%
Costa Rica
60
42
39
57
3.45%
Ecuador
43
76
75
64
2.51%
El Salvador
35
76
67
N/A
1.04%
Guatemala
46
59
58
N/A
2.52%
Honduras
27
47
58
N/A
2.00%
Mexico
69
42
52
61
4.07%
Nicaragua
23
49
42
N/A
1.75%
South and
Central America
France Review 2016
France
Panama
66
76
72
45
5.00%
Paraguay
35
46
66
16
5.27%
Peru
59
66
75
22
6.33%
Suriname
58
26
81
59
4.02%
Uruguay
70
26
27
N/A
5.71%
Venezuela
55
1
28
13
-2.63%
Antigua & Barbuda
72
76
15
N/A
-2.01%
Bahamas
74
76
45
87
-0.50%
Barbados
67
76
33
15
-0.50%
Caribbean
Bermuda
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cuba
45
76
18
95
0.25%
Dominica
53
76
65
N/A
1.40%
Dominican Republic
54
39
43
4
3.50%
Grenada
63
76
48
N/A
0.80%
Guyana
28
56
17
N/A
4.36%
Haiti
11
27
89
N/A
-8.50%
Jamaica
42
9
85
19
-0.28%
France Review 2016
France
St Lucia
55
76
67
N/A
1.14%
St Vincent &
Grenadines
49
76
95
N/A
0.50%
Trinidad & Tobago
82
37
77
72
2.13%
Bahrain
84
76
62
91
3.48%
Iran
51
19
40
58
3.01%
Iraq
48
9
8
N/A
7.27%
Israel
87
62
12
48
3.20%
Jordan
41
51
3
N/A
4.10%
Kuwait
96
4
99
N/A
3.10%
Lebanon
63
54
2
N/A
6.00%
Oman
76
16
88
N/A
4.71%
Qatar
99
16
83
N/A
18.54%
Saudi Arabia
76
8
98
N/A
3.70%
Syria
61
24
40
N/A
5.00%
Turkey
75
23
27
60
5.20%
United Arab
Emirates
96
24
98
94
1.29%
Middle East
France Review 2016
France
Yemen
28
2
78
N/A
7.78%
Afghanistan
17
70
74
N/A
8.64%
Bangladesh
13
43
25
N/A
5.38%
Bhutan
24
55
5
N/A
6.85%
Brunei
78
19
99
75
0.48%
Cambodia
18
67
42
N/A
4.77%
China
54
90
19
68
11.03%
Hong Kong
89
76
14
82
5.02%
India
31
38
34
35
8.78%
Indonesia
42
46
37
31
6.00%
Japan
88
89
6
71
1.90%
Kazakhstan
62
13
76
42
2.40%
Korea North
18
65
23
N/A
1.50%
Korea South
83
63
22
85
4.44%
Kyrgyz Republic
24
15
84
88
4.61%
Laos
17
54
7
N/A
7.22%
Macao
91
76
14
82
3.00%
Asia
France Review 2016
France
Malaysia
68
65
44
90
4.72%
Maldives
44
55
17
N/A
3.45%
Mongolia
33
5
77
93
7.22%
Myanmar
3
41
72
N/A
5.26%
Nepal
3
14
25
N/A
2.97%
Pakistan
19
15
31
41
3.00%
Papua New Guinea
75
50
11
N/A
7.96%
Philippines
30
48
53
43
3.63%
Singapore
93
75
63
40
5.68%
Sri Lanka
38
22
10
N/A
5.50%
Taiwan
84
88
35
89
6.50%
Tajikistan
6
6
60
97
4.00%
Thailand
56
64
90
96
5.46%
Turkmenistan
51
53
68
N/A
12.00%
Uzbekistan
40
10
60
100
8.00%
Vietnam
25
12
20
N/A
6.04%
96
63
31
46
2.96%
Pacific
Australia
France Review 2016
France
Fiji
46
53
3
N/A
2.06%
Marshall Islands
27
76
46
N/A
1.08%
Micronesia (Fed.
States)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
New Caledonia
96
73
51
52
2.00%
New Zealand
98
73
51
52
2.00%
Samoa
34
88
64
N/A
-2.77%
Solomon Islands
14
71
1
N/A
3.36%
Tonga
26
57
38
N/A
0.60%
Vanuatu
33
58
47
N/A
3.80%
Source:
CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com
Updated:
This material was produced in 2010; it is subject to updating in 2012.
France Review 2016
France
div style='margin-top:40%;padding-top:40%'>
Chapter 4
Investment Overview
France Review 2016
France
Foreign Investment Climate
Background
France’s economy is transitioning from a well-to-do modern economy that has featured extensive
government ownership and intervention to one that relies more on market mechanisms. The
government has partially or fully privatized many large companies, banks, and insurers. It retains
controlling stakes in several leading firms and is dominant in some sectors, particularly power,
public transport, and defense industries. The telecommunications sector is gradually being opened
to competition. France's leaders remain committed to a capitalism in which they maintain social
equity by means of laws, tax policies, and social spending that reduce income disparity and the
impact of free markets on public health and welfare. The government has lowered income taxes
and introduced measures to boost employment and reform the pension system. In addition, it is
focusing on the problems of the high cost of labor and labor market inflexibility resulting from the
35-hour workweek and restrictions on lay-offs. The tax burden remains one of the highest in
Europe. The lingering economic slowdown and inflexible budget items have tested the euro-zone's
3 percent of GDP limit.
Foreign Investment Assessment
Openness to Foreign Investment
Ensuring that France's investment climate is attractive to foreign investors is a priority for French
government officials. Government officials see foreign investment as a way to create jobs and
stimulate growth. Investment regulations are simple, and a range of financial incentives to foreign
investors is available. The investment promotion agency, DATAR, provides active and extensive
assistance to potential investors both in France and through agencies around the world. Foreign
investors say they are attracted to France by its skilled labor force, central location in Europe, and
good infrastructure. However, despite a decade or more of economic reforms and liberalization,
foreign companies often say they find relatively high payroll and income taxes, pervasive regulation
of labor and products markets, and sometimes negative attitudes toward foreign investors to be
disincentives to investing in France.
Foreign investment represents a significant percentage of production in many sectors. Foreign
investment has been growing at a rate considerably higher than that of the economy as a whole.
France Review 2016
France
Using Bank of France balance of payments data based on the historical book value of investment,
the United States is the largest foreign investor in France, with U.S. firms representing over 19
percent of the stock of foreign investment.
The formal French investment regime is among the world's least restrictive. There is no generalized
screening of foreign investment. Only acquisitions, irrespective of size or the nationality of the
investors, involving the health sector, public order or the national security of France are subject to
a one-month official review. Nevertheless, there are certain sectorally based foreign investment
restrictions that in practice tend to favor investors from other EU countries. France has notified to
the OECD restrictions in the following sectors (more details can be found in OECD reports,
including the April 1996 Review of Foreign Direct Investment in France.
The introduction of the Euro as the single currency of the European Monetary Union (EMU),
including France, has increased the competitive pressures on France to improve its domestic
business and investment climate in order to promote growth and create new jobs. In addition,
France has responded to a more competitive international investment climate by implementing
market-oriented economic reforms that increase the attractiveness of the French economy to
foreign investors and by offering a variety of investment incentives. Foreign investors also say they
are attracted to France by its central location in Europe, highly skilled labor force, and good
infrastructure (although France lags behind the U.S. and some other European countries in
personal computer use and Internet access).
Yet, while today's foreign investors face far less interference than was once the case, over a decade
of reforms has not entirely overcome a traditional preference for national control of business and a
sometimes reflexive opposition to foreign investment. In some cases, this can be seen in labor
organization opposition to acquisitions of French businesses by U.S. firms, often reflecting a
perception that United States (U.S.) firms focus on short-term profits at the expense of
employment. In other cases, French firms have stated a preference for working with French and
European, rather than U.S., firms. A degree of opaqueness in the privatization process can also
aggravate suspicions about the equal treatment of foreign investors in publicly-held firms.
In addition, deregulation is far from complete and the state remains very involved in economic life.
There is extensive regulation of business and labor markets and business taxation rates are high
compared to other leading industrial countries. Foreign investors most often cite unnecessary labor
regulation and high income and payroll taxes as the greatest disincentive to investing in France. In
the case of labor market regulation, the impact on companies of the transition to a 35-hour legal
workweek (which went into effect in 2000 for firms with over 20 employees and which will apply
to other firms by 2002) is so far unclear.
Transparency of Regulatory System
France Review 2016
France
The French government has made considerable progress in recent years improving the
transparency and accessibility of its regulatory system. Government Ministers, companies,
consumer organizations and trade associations may petition the Unfair Competition Council to
investigate anti-competitive practices.
Of most concern to foreign companies has been standards setting. Rigorous testing and approval
procedures must sometimes be undertaken before goods can be sold in France, particularly those
that entail risk. When EU-wide standards do not exist, specific French standards apply. Mutual
recognition agreements covering the testing and certification of certain specified regulated products
have been negotiated by the United States and the EU.
Labor Force
Total: 27.7 million estimated
By occupation: agriculture 4.1%, industry 24.4%, services 71.5%
Agriculture and Industry
Agriculture products: wheat, cereals, sugar beets, potatoes, wine grapes, beef, dairy products, fish
Industries: machinery, chemicals, automobiles, metallurgy, aircraft, electronics; textiles, food
processing; tourism
Import Commodities and Partners
Commodities: machinery and equipment, vehicles, crude oil, aircraft, plastics, chemicals
Partners: Germany 19.6%, Belgium 9.5%, Italy 9.1%, Spain 7.4%, Netherlands 7%, UK 6.9%,
US 5.3%
Export Commodities and Partners
Commodities: machinery and transportation equipment, aircraft, plastics, chemicals,
pharmaceutical products, iron and steel, beverages
Partners: Germany 15.3%, Spain 9.6%, UK 9.4%, Italy 9.3%, Belgium 7.3%, US 6.7%
France Review 2016
France
Telephone System
Telephones- main lines in use: 33,905,400
Telephones- mobile cellular: 41,683,100
General Assessment: highly developed
Domestic: extensive cable and microwave radio relay; extensive introduction of fiber-optic cable;
domestic satellite system
International: country code - 33; satellite earth stations - 2 Intelsat (with total of 5 antennas - 2 for
Indian Ocean and 3 for Atlantic Ocean), NA Eutelsat, 1 Inmarsat (Atlantic Ocean region); HF
radiotelephone communications with more than 20 countries
Internet
Internet Hosts: 2,396,761
Internet users: 21.9 million
Roads, Airports, Ports and Harbors
Railways: 32,175 km
Highways: 893,100 km
Ports and harbors: Bordeaux, Boulogne, Cherbourg, Dijon, Dunkerque, La Pallice, Le Havre,
Lyon, Marseille, Mulhouse, Nantes, Paris, Rouen, Saint Nazaire, Saint Malo, Strasbourg
Airports: 478; w/paved runways: 283
Legal System and Considerations
France has a civil law system with indigenous concepts. There is a review of administrative but not
legislative acts.
Dispute Settlement
The judicial system is independent. Property and contractual rights are enforced by the French civil
code. Judgments of foreign courts are accepted and enforced by courts in France once they have
been "declared executory" by a French judge through "exequatur" proceedings (Article 2123 of the
French Civil Code and Article 509 of the Civil Procedure Code). However, in some civil cases and
France Review 2016
France
in bankruptcy cases, foreign judgments are recognized and enforced by French courts without
executory proceedings.
France is a member of the World Bank's International Center for the Settlement of Investment
Disputes. In addition, in most of its bilateral investment treaties (BITs) it has agreed to accept
binding arbitration to resolve investor-state disputes. However, because most of France's BIT
partners are developing countries, investors from these countries have few investments in France.
Corruption Perception Ranking
See Corruption Index by Transparency International in this Country Review, which ranks France
as one of the least corrupt nations in the world, (according to this index).
Cultural Considerations
The French are very polite to one another and expect the same from others. For example, when
entering or leaving a shop, it is customary to greet and say goodbye to the clerk. It is also
noteworthy that, culturally, French men tend to interact with women with a great deal of gallantry.
Women should not mistake French gallantry for condescension.
For more information see:
United States’ State Department Commercial Guide
The Foreign Investment Index is a proprietary index measuring attractiveness to international
investment flows. The Foreign Investment Index is calculated using an established methodology by
CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on a given country's economic stability (sustained
economic growth, monetary stability, current account deficits, budget surplus), economic risk (risk
of non-servicing of payments for goods or services, loans and trade-related finance, risk of
sovereign default), business and investment climate (property rights, labor force and laws,
regulatory transparency, openness to foreign investment, market conditions, and stability of
government). Scores are assigned from 0-10 using the aforementioned criteria. A score of 0 marks
the lowest level of foreign investment viability, while a score of 10 marks the highest level of
France Review 2016
France
foreign investment viability, according to this proprietary index.
France Review 2016
Country
Assessment
Afghanistan
2
Albania
4.5
Algeria
6
Andorra
9
Angola
4.5-5
Antigua
8.5
Argentina
5
Armenia
5
Australia
9.5
Austria
9-9.5
Azerbaijan
5
Bahamas
9
Bahrain
7.5
Bangladesh
4.5
France
France Review 2016
Barbados
9
Belarus
4
Belgium
9
Belize
7.5
Benin
5.5
Bhutan
4.5
Bolivia
4.5
Bosnia-Herzegovina
5
Botswana
7.5-8
Brazil
8
Brunei
7
Bulgaria
5.5
Burkina Faso
4
Burma (Myanmar)
4.5
Burundi
4
Cambodia
4.5
Cameroon
5
Canada
9.5
France
France Review 2016
Cape Verde
6
3
Chad
4
Chile
9
China
7.5
China: Hong Kong
8.5
China: Taiwan
8.5
Colombia
7
Comoros
4
Congo DRC
4
Congo RC
5
Costa Rica
8
Cote d'Ivoire
4.5
Croatia
7
Cuba
4.5
Cyprus
7
Czech Republic
8.5
Denmark
9.5
France
France Review 2016
Djibouti
4.5
Dominica
6
Dominican Republic
6.5
East Timor
4.5
Ecuador
5.5
Egypt
4.5-5
El Salvador
6
Equatorial Guinea
4.5
Eritrea
3.5
Estonia
8
Ethiopia
4.5
Fiji
5
Finland
9
Former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia
5
France
9-9.5
Gabon
5.5
Gambia
5
Georgia
5
France
France Review 2016
Germany
9-9.5
Ghana
5.5
Greece
5
Grenada
7.5
Guatemala
5.5
Guinea
3.5
Guinea-Bissau
3.5
Guyana
4.5
Haiti
4
Holy See (Vatican)
n/a
Hong Kong (China)
8.5
Honduras
5.5
Hungary
8
Iceland
8-8.5
India
8
Indonesia
5.5
Iran
4
Iraq
3
France
France Review 2016
Ireland
8
Israel
8.5
Italy
8
Jamaica
5.5
Japan
9.5
Jordan
6
Kazakhstan
6
Kenya
5
Kiribati
5.5
Korea, North
1
Korea, South
9
Kosovo
4.5
Kuwait
8.5
Kyrgyzstan
4.5
Laos
4
Latvia
7
Lebanon
5
Lesotho
5.5
France
France Review 2016
Liberia
3.5
Libya
3
Liechtenstein
9
Lithuania
7.5
Luxembourg
9-9.5
Madagascar
4.5
Malawi
4.5
Malaysia
8.5
Maldives
6.5
Mali
5
Malta
9
Marshall Islands
5
Mauritania
4.5
Mauritius
7.5-8
Mexico
6.5-7
Micronesia
5
Moldova
4.5-5
Monaco
9
France
France Review 2016
Mongolia
5
Montenegro
5.5
Morocco
7.5
Mozambique
5
Namibia
7.5
Nauru
4.5
Nepal
4
Netherlands
9-9.5
New Zealand
9.5
Nicaragua
5
Niger
4.5
Nigeria
4.5
Norway
9-9.5
Oman
8
Pakistan
4
Palau
4.5-5
Panama
7
Papua New Guinea
5
France
France Review 2016
Paraguay
6
Peru
6
Philippines
6
Poland
8
Portugal
7.5-8
Qatar
9
Romania
6-6.5
Russia
6
Rwanda
4
8
Saint Lucia
8
7
Samoa
7
San Marino
8.5
4.5-5
Saudi Arabia
7
Senegal
6
Serbia
6
France
France Review 2016
Seychelles
5
Sierra Leone
4
Singapore
9.5
8.5
Slovenia
8.5-9
Solomon Islands
5
Somalia
2
South Africa
8
Spain
7.5-8
Sri Lanka
5.5
Sudan
4
Suriname
5
Swaziland
4.5
Sweden
9.5
Switzerland
9.5
Syria
2.5
Tajikistan
4
Taiwan (China)
8.5
France
France Review 2016
Tanzania
5
Thailand
7.5-8
Togo
4.5-5
Tonga
5.5-6
Trinidad and Tobago
8-8.5
Tunisia
6
Turkey
6.5-7
Turkmenistan
4
Tuvalu
7
Uganda
5
Ukraine
4.5-5
8.5
United Kingdom
9
United States
9
Uruguay
6.5-7
Uzbekistan
4
Vanuatu
6
Venezuela
5
France
Vietnam
5.5
Yemen
3
Zambia
4.5-5
Zimbabwe
3.5
Editor's Note:
As of 2015, the global economic crisis (emerging in 2008) had affected many countries across the
world, resulting in changes to their rankings. Among those countries affected were top tier
economies, such as the United Kingdom, Iceland, Switzerland and Austria. However, in all these
cases, their rankings have moved back upward in the last couple of years as anxieties have
eased. Other top tier countries, such as Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy, suffered some
effects due to debt woes and the concomitant effect on the euro zone. Greece, another euro zone
nation, was also downgraded due to its sovereign debt crisis; however, Greece's position on the
precipice of default incurred a sharper downgrade than the other four euro zone countries
mentioned above. Cyprus' exposure to Greek bank yielded a downgrade in its case. Slovenia and
Latvia have been slightly downgraded due to a mix of economic and political concerns but could
easily be upgraded in a future assessment, should these concerns abate. Meanwhile, the crisis in
eastern Ukraine fueled downgrades in that country and neighboring Russia.
Despite the "trifecta of tragedy" in Japan in 2011 -- the earthquake, the ensuing tsunami, and the
resulting nuclear crisis -- and the appreciable destabilization of the economic and political terrain
therein, this country has only slightly been downgraded. Japan's challenges have been assessed to
be transient, the government remains accountable, and there is little risk of default. Both India
and China retain their rankings; India holds a slightly higher ranking than China due to its record of
democratic representation and accountability.
There were shifts in opposite directions for Mali and Nigeria versus the Central African Republic,
Burkina Faso, and Burundi. Mali was slightly upgraded due to its efforts to return to constitutional
order following the 2012 coup and to neutralize the threat of separatists and Islamists. Likewise, a
new government in Nigeria generated a slight upgrade as the country attempts to confront
corruption, crime, and terrorism. But the Central African Republic was downgraded due to the
takeover of the government by Seleka rebels and the continued decline into lawlessness in that
country. Likewise, the attempts by the leaders of Burundi and Burkina Faso to hold onto power
by by-passing the constitution raised eybrows and resulted in downgrades.
France Review 2016
France
Political unrest in Libya and Algeria have contributed to a decision to marginally downgrade these
countries as well. Syria incurred a sharper downgrade due to the devolution into de facto civil war
and the dire security threat posed by Islamist terrorists. Iraq saw a similar downgrade as a result of
the takeover of wide swaths of territory and the threat of genocide at the hands of Islamist
terrorists. Yemen, likewise, has been downgraded due to political instability at the hands of
secessionists, terrorists, Houthi rebels, and the intervention of external parties. Conversely, Egypt
and Tunisia saw slight upgrades as their political environments stabilize.
At the low end of the spectrum, devolving security conditions and/or economic crisis have resulted
in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Zimbabwe maintaining their low ratings.
The United States continues to retain its previous slight downgrade due to the enduring threat of
default surrounding the debt ceiling in that country, matched by a conflict-ridden political climate.
In the case of Mexico, there is limited concern about default, but increasing alarm over the security
situation in that country and the government’s ability to contain it. In Argentina, a default to bond
holders resulted in a downgrade to that country. Finally, a small but significant upgrade was
attributed to Cuba due to its recent pro-business reforms and its normalization of ties with the
Unitd States.
Source:
CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com
Updated:
2015
Transparency International: Corruption Perceptions Index
Editor's Note:
Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index is a composite index which ranks
countries in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials.
France Review 2016
France
This index indicates the views of national and international business people and analysts about the
levels of corruption in each country. The highest (and best) level of transparency is indicated by
the number, 10. The lower (and worse) levels of transparency are indicated by lower numbers.
Rank
Country/Territory
CPI 2009
Score
Surveys
Used
Confidence
Range
1
New Zealand
9.4
6
9.1 - 9.5
2
Denmark
9.3
6
9.1 - 9.5
3
Singapore
9.2
9
9.0 - 9.4
3
Sweden
9.2
6
9.0 - 9.3
5
Switzerland
9.0
6
8.9 - 9.1
6
Finland
8.9
6
8.4 - 9.4
6
Netherlands
8.9
6
8.7 - 9.0
8
Australia
8.7
8
8.3 - 9.0
8
Canada
8.7
6
8.5 - 9.0
8
Iceland
8.7
4
7.5 - 9.4
11
Norway
8.6
6
8.2 - 9.1
12
Hong Kong
8.2
8
7.9 - 8.5
12
Luxembourg
8.2
6
7.6 - 8.8
14
Germany
8.0
6
7.7 - 8.3
France Review 2016
France
14
Ireland
8.0
6
7.8 - 8.4
16
Austria
7.9
6
7.4 - 8.3
17
Japan
7.7
8
7.4 - 8.0
17
United Kingdom
7.7
6
7.3 - 8.2
19
United States
7.5
8
6.9 - 8.0
20
Barbados
7.4
4
6.6 - 8.2
21
Belgium
7.1
6
6.9 - 7.3
22
Qatar
7.0
6
5.8 - 8.1
22
Saint Lucia
7.0
3
6.7 - 7.5
24
France
6.9
6
6.5 - 7.3
25
Chile
6.7
7
6.5 - 6.9
25
Uruguay
6.7
5
6.4 - 7.1
27
Cyprus
6.6
4
6.1 - 7.1
27
Estonia
6.6
8
6.1 - 6.9
27
Slovenia
6.6
8
6.3 - 6.9
30
6.5
5
5.5 - 7.5
31
Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines
6.4
3
4.9 - 7.5
32
Israel
6.1
6
5.4 - 6.7
France Review 2016
France
32
Spain
6.1
6
5.5 - 6.6
34
Dominica
5.9
3
4.9 - 6.7
35
Portugal
5.8
6
5.5 - 6.2
35
Puerto Rico
5.8
4
5.2 - 6.3
37
Botswana
5.6
6
5.1 - 6.3
37
Taiwan
5.6
9
5.4 - 5.9
39
Brunei Darussalam
5.5
4
4.7 - 6.4
39
Oman
5.5
5
4.4 - 6.5
39
Korea (South)
5.5
9
5.3 - 5.7
42
Mauritius
5.4
6
5.0 - 5.9
43
Costa Rica
5.3
5
4.7 - 5.9
43
Macau
5.3
3
3.3 - 6.9
45
Malta
5.2
4
4.0 - 6.2
46
Bahrain
5.1
5
4.2 - 5.8
46
Cape Verde
5.1
3
3.3 - 7.0
46
Hungary
5.1
8
4.6 - 5.7
49
Bhutan
5.0
4
4.3 - 5.6
49
Jordan
5.0
7
3.9 - 6.1
France Review 2016
France
49
Poland
5.0
8
4.5 - 5.5
52
Czech Republic
4.9
8
4.3 - 5.6
52
Lithuania
4.9
8
4.4 - 5.4
54
Seychelles
4.8
3
3.0 - 6.7
55
South Africa
4.7
8
4.3 - 4.9
56
Latvia
4.5
6
4.1 - 4.9
56
Malaysia
4.5
9
4.0 - 5.1
56
Namibia
4.5
6
3.9 - 5.1
56
Samoa
4.5
3
3.3 - 5.3
56
Slovakia
4.5
8
4.1 - 4.9
61
Cuba
4.4
3
3.5 - 5.1
61
Turkey
4.4
7
3.9 - 4.9
63
Italy
4.3
6
3.8 - 4.9
63
Saudi Arabia
4.3
5
3.1 - 5.3
65
Tunisia
4.2
6
3.0 - 5.5
66
Croatia
4.1
8
3.7 - 4.5
66
Georgia
4.1
7
3.4 - 4.7
66
Kuwait
4.1
5
3.2 - 5.1
France Review 2016
France
69
Ghana
3.9
7
3.2 - 4.6
69
Montenegro
3.9
5
3.5 - 4.4
71
Bulgaria
3.8
8
3.2 - 4.5
71
FYR Macedonia
3.8
6
3.4 - 4.2
71
Greece
3.8
6
3.2 - 4.3
71
Romania
3.8
8
3.2 - 4.3
75
Brazil
3.7
7
3.3 - 4.3
75
Colombia
3.7
7
3.1 - 4.3
75
Peru
3.7
7
3.4 - 4.1
75
Suriname
3.7
3
3.0 - 4.7
79
Burkina Faso
3.6
7
2.8 - 4.4
79
China
3.6
9
3.0 - 4.2
79
Swaziland
3.6
3
3.0 - 4.7
79
Trinidad and Tobago
3.6
4
3.0 - 4.3
83
Serbia
3.5
6
3.3 - 3.9
84
El Salvador
3.4
5
3.0 - 3.8
84
Guatemala
3.4
5
3.0 - 3.9
84
India
3.4
10
3.2 - 3.6
France Review 2016
France
84
Panama
3.4
5
3.1 - 3.7
84
Thailand
3.4
9
3.0 - 3.8
89
Lesotho
3.3
6
2.8 - 3.8
89
Malawi
3.3
7
2.7 - 3.9
89
Mexico
3.3
7
3.2 - 3.5
89
Moldova
3.3
6
2.7 - 4.0
89
Morocco
3.3
6
2.8 - 3.9
89
Rwanda
3.3
4
2.9 - 3.7
95
Albania
3.2
6
3.0 - 3.3
95
Vanuatu
3.2
3
2.3 - 4.7
97
Liberia
3.1
3
1.9 - 3.8
97
Sri Lanka
3.1
7
2.8 - 3.4
99
Bosnia and Herzegovina
3.0
7
2.6 - 3.4
99
Dominican Republic
3.0
5
2.9 - 3.2
99
Jamaica
3.0
5
2.8 - 3.3
99
Madagascar
3.0
7
2.8 - 3.2
99
Senegal
3.0
7
2.5 - 3.6
99
Tonga
3.0
3
2.6 - 3.3
France Review 2016
France
99
Zambia
3.0
7
2.8 - 3.2
106
Argentina
2.9
7
2.6 - 3.1
106
Benin
2.9
6
2.3 - 3.4
106
Gabon
2.9
3
2.6 - 3.1
106
Gambia
2.9
5
1.6 - 4.0
106
Niger
2.9
5
2.7 - 3.0
111
Algeria
2.8
6
2.5 - 3.1
111
Djibouti
2.8
4
2.3 - 3.2
111
Egypt
2.8
6
2.6 - 3.1
111
Indonesia
2.8
9
2.4 - 3.2
111
Kiribati
2.8
3
2.3 - 3.3
111
Mali
2.8
6
2.4 - 3.2
111
2.8
3
2.4 - 3.3
111
Solomon Islands
2.8
3
2.3 - 3.3
111
Togo
2.8
5
1.9 - 3.9
120
Armenia
2.7
7
2.6 - 2.8
120
Bolivia
2.7
6
2.4 - 3.1
120
Ethiopia
2.7
7
2.4 - 2.9
France Review 2016
France
120
Kazakhstan
2.7
7
2.1 - 3.3
120
Mongolia
2.7
7
2.4 - 3.0
120
Vietnam
2.7
9
2.4 - 3.1
126
Eritrea
2.6
4
1.6 - 3.8
126
Guyana
2.6
4
2.5 - 2.7
126
Syria
2.6
5
2.2 - 2.9
126
Tanzania
2.6
7
2.4 - 2.9
130
Honduras
2.5
6
2.2 - 2.8
130
Lebanon
2.5
3
1.9 - 3.1
130
Libya
2.5
6
2.2 - 2.8
130
Maldives
2.5
4
1.8 - 3.2
130
Mauritania
2.5
7
2.0 - 3.3
130
Mozambique
2.5
7
2.3 - 2.8
130
Nicaragua
2.5
6
2.3 - 2.7
130
Nigeria
2.5
7
2.2 - 2.7
130
Uganda
2.5
7
2.1 - 2.8
139
Bangladesh
2.4
7
2.0 - 2.8
139
Belarus
2.4
4
2.0 - 2.8
France Review 2016
France
139
Pakistan
2.4
7
2.1 - 2.7
139
Philippines
2.4
9
2.1 - 2.7
143
Azerbaijan
2.3
7
2.0 - 2.6
143
Comoros
2.3
3
1.6 - 3.3
143
Nepal
2.3
6
2.0 - 2.6
146
Cameroon
2.2
7
1.9 - 2.6
146
Ecuador
2.2
5
2.0 - 2.5
146
Kenya
2.2
7
1.9 - 2.5
146
Russia
2.2
8
1.9 - 2.4
146
Sierra Leone
2.2
5
1.9 - 2.4
146
Timor-Leste
2.2
5
1.8 - 2.6
146
Ukraine
2.2
8
2.0 - 2.6
146
Zimbabwe
2.2
7
1.7 - 2.8
154
Côte d´Ivoire
2.1
7
1.8 - 2.4
154
Papua New Guinea
2.1
5
1.7 - 2.5
154
Paraguay
2.1
5
1.7 - 2.5
154
Yemen
2.1
4
1.6 - 2.5
158
Cambodia
2.0
8
1.8 - 2.2
France Review 2016
France
158
2.0
4
1.9 - 2.2
158
Laos
2.0
4
1.6 - 2.6
158
Tajikistan
2.0
8
1.6 - 2.5
162
Angola
1.9
5
1.8 - 1.9
162
Congo Brazzaville
1.9
5
1.6 - 2.1
162
Democratic Republic of
Congo
1.9
5
1.7 - 2.1
162
Guinea-Bissau
1.9
3
1.8 - 2.0
162
Kyrgyzstan
1.9
7
1.8 - 2.1
162
Venezuela
1.9
7
1.8 - 2.0
168
Burundi
1.8
6
1.6 - 2.0
168
Equatorial Guinea
1.8
3
1.6 - 1.9
168
Guinea
1.8
5
1.7 - 1.8
168
Haiti
1.8
3
1.4 - 2.3
168
Iran
1.8
3
1.7 - 1.9
168
Turkmenistan
1.8
4
1.7 - 1.9
174
Uzbekistan
1.7
6
1.5 - 1.8
175
Chad
1.6
6
1.5 - 1.7
176
Iraq
1.5
3
1.2 - 1.8
France Review 2016
France
176
Sudan
1.5
5
1.4 - 1.7
178
Myanmar
1.4
3
0.9 - 1.8
179
Afghanistan
1.3
4
1.0 - 1.5
180
Somalia
1.1
3
0.9 - 1.4
Methodology:
As noted above, the highest (and best) level of transparency with the least perceived corruption is
indicated by the number, 10. The lower (and worse) levels of transparency are indicated by lower
numbers.
According to Transparency International, the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) table shows a
country's ranking and score, the number of surveys used to determine the score, and the
confidence range of the scoring.
The rank shows how one country compares to others included in the index. The CPI score
indicates the perceived level of public-sector corruption in a country/territory.
The CPI is based on 13 independent surveys. However, not all surveys include all countries. The
surveys used column indicates how many surveys were relied upon to determine the score for that
country.
The confidence range indicates the reliability of the CPI scores and tells us that allowing for a
margin of error, we can be 90% confident that the true score for this country lies within this range.
Note:
Kosovo, which separated from the Yugoslav successor state of Serbia, is not listed above. No
calculation is available for Kosovo at this time, however, a future corruption index by
Transparency International may include the world's newest country in its tally. Taiwan has been
listed above despite its contested status; while Taiwan claims sovereign status, China claims
ultimate jurisdiction over Taiwan. Hong Kong, which is also under the rubric of Chinese
sovereignty, is listed above. Note as well that Puerto Rico, which is a United States domain, is also
included in the list above. These inclusions likely have to do with the size and fairly autonomous
France Review 2016
France
status of their economies.
Source:
Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index; available at URL:
http://www.transparency.org
Updated:
Uploaded in 2011 using most recent ranking available; reviewed in 2015.
Editor's Note:
The Global Competitiveness Report’s competitiveness ranking is based on the Global
Competitiveness Index (GCI), which was developed for the World Economic Forum. The GCI is
based on a number of competitiveness considerations, and provides a comprehensive picture of the
competitiveness landscape in countries around the world. The competitiveness considerations are:
institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health and primary education, higher
education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial market
development, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication, and innovation. The
rankings are calculated from both publicly available data and the Executive Opinion Survey.
Country/Economy
GCI 2010
Rank
GCI 2010
Score
GCI 2009
Rank
Change
2009-2010
Switzerland
1
5.63
1
0
Sweden
2
5.56
4
2
Singapore
3
5.48
3
0
France Review 2016
France
United States
4
5.43
2
-2
Germany
5
5.39
7
2
Japan
6
5.37
8
2
Finland
7
5.37
6
-1
Netherlands
8
5.33
10
2
Denmark
9
5.32
5
-4
Canada
10
5.30
9
-1
Hong Kong SAR
11
5.30
11
0
United Kingdom
12
5.25
13
1
Taiwan, China
13
5.21
12
-1
Norway
14
5.14
14
0
France
15
5.13
16
1
Australia
16
5.11
15
-1
Qatar
17
5.10
22
5
Austria
18
5.09
17
-1
Belgium
19
5.07
18
-1
Luxembourg
20
5.05
21
1
Saudi Arabia
21
4.95
28
7
France Review 2016
France
Korea, Rep.
22
4.93
19
-3
New Zealand
23
4.92
20
-3
Israel
24
4.91
27
3
25
4.89
23
-2
Malaysia
26
4.88
24
-2
China
27
4.84
29
2
Brunei Darussalam
28
4.75
32
4
Ireland
29
4.74
25
-4
Chile
30
4.69
30
0
Iceland
31
4.68
26
-5
Tunisia
32
4.65
40
8
Estonia
33
4.61
35
2
Oman
34
4.61
41
7
Kuwait
35
4.59
39
4
Czech Republic
36
4.57
31
-5
Bahrain
37
4.54
38
1
Thailand
38
4.51
36
-2
Poland
39
4.51
46
7
France Review 2016
France
Cyprus
40
4.50
34
-6
Puerto Rico
41
4.49
42
1
Spain
42
4.49
33
-9
Barbados
43
4.45
44
1
Indonesia
44
4.43
54
10
Slovenia
45
4.42
37
-8
Portugal
46
4.38
43
-3
Lithuania
47
4.38
53
6
Italy
48
4.37
48
0
Montenegro
49
4.36
62
13
Malta
50
4.34
52
2
India
51
4.33
49
-2
Hungary
52
4.33
58
6
Panama
53
4.33
59
6
South Africa
54
4.32
45
-9
Mauritius
55
4.32
57
2
Costa Rica
56
4.31
55
-1
Azerbaijan
57
4.29
51
-6
France Review 2016
France
Brazil
58
4.28
56
-2
Vietnam
59
4.27
75
16
Slovak Republic
60
4.25
47
-13
Turkey
61
4.25
61
0
Sri Lanka
62
4.25
79
17
Russian Federation
63
4.24
63
0
Uruguay
64
4.23
65
1
Jordan
65
4.21
50
-15
Mexico
66
4.19
60
-6
Romania
67
4.16
64
-3
Colombia
68
4.14
69
1
Iran
69
4.14
n/a
n/a
Latvia
70
4.14
68
-2
Bulgaria
71
4.13
76
5
Kazakhstan
72
4.12
67
-5
Peru
73
4.11
78
5
Namibia
74
4.09
74
0
Morocco
75
4.08
73
-2
France Review 2016
France
Botswana
76
4.05
66
-10
Croatia
77
4.04
72
-5
Guatemala
78
4.04
80
2
Macedonia, FYR
79
4.02
84
5
Rwanda
80
4.00
n/a
n/a
Egypt
81
4.00
70
-11
El Salvador
82
3.99
77
-5
Greece
83
3.99
71
-12
Trinidad and Tobago
84
3.97
86
2
Philippines
85
3.96
87
2
Algeria
86
3.96
83
-3
Argentina
87
3.95
85
-2
Albania
88
3.94
96
8
Ukraine
89
3.90
82
-7
Gambia, The
90
3.90
81
-9
Honduras
91
3.89
89
-2
Lebanon
92
3.89
n/a
n/a
Georgia
93
3.86
90
-3
France Review 2016
France
Moldova
94
3.86
n/a
n/a
Jamaica
95
3.85
91
-4
Serbia
96
3.84
93
-3
Syria
97
3.79
94
-3
Armenia
98
3.76
97
-1
Mongolia
99
3.75
117
18
Libya
100
3.74
88
-12
Dominican Republic
101
3.72
95
-6
102
3.70
109
7
Benin
103
3.69
103
0
Senegal
104
3.67
92
-12
Ecuador
105
3.65
105
0
Kenya
106
3.65
98
-8
Bangladesh
107
3.64
106
-1
Bolivia
108
3.64
120
12
Cambodia
109
3.63
110
1
Guyana
110
3.62
104
-6
Cameroon
111
3.58
111
0
France Review 2016
France
Nicaragua
112
3.57
115
3
Tanzania
113
3.56
100
-13
Ghana
114
3.56
114
0
Zambia
115
3.55
112
-3
Tajikistan
116
3.53
122
6
Cape Verde
117
3.51
n/a
n/a
Uganda
118
3.51
108
-10
Ethiopia
119
3.51
118
-1
Paraguay
120
3.49
124
4
Kyrgyz Republic
121
3.49
123
2
Venezuela
122
3.48
113
-9
Pakistan
123
3.48
101
-22
Madagascar
124
3.46
121
-3
Malawi
125
3.45
119
-6
Swaziland
126
3.40
n/a
n/a
Nigeria
127
3.38
99
-28
Lesotho
128
3.36
107
-21
Côte d'Ivoire
129
3.35
116
-13
France Review 2016
France
Nepal
130
3.34
125
-5
Mozambique
131
3.32
129
-2
Mali
132
3.28
130
-2
Timor-Leste
133
3.23
126
-7
Burkina Faso
134
3.20
128
-6
Mauritania
135
3.14
127
-8
Zimbabwe
136
3.03
132
-4
Burundi
137
2.96
133
-4
Angola
138
2.93
n/a
n/a
Chad
139
2.73
131
-8
Methodology:
The competitiveness rankings are calculated from both publicly available data and the Executive
Opinion Survey, a comprehensive annual survey conducted by the World Economic Forum
together with its network of Partner Institutes (leading research institutes and business
organizations) in the countries covered by the Report.
Highlights according to WEF -- The United States falls two places to fourth position, overtaken by Sweden and Singapore in the
rankings of the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011
- The People’s Republic of China continues to move up the rankings, with marked improvements
in several other Asian countries
- Germany moves up two places to fifth place, leading the Eurozone countries
- Switzerland tops the rankings
France Review 2016
France
Source:
World Economic Forum; available at URL: http://www.weforum.org
Updated:
2011 using most recent ranking available; reviewed in 2015.
Taxation
Corporate tax
The corporate income, capital gains, and branch tax rates are 33.3 percent. There is a social
surcharge of 3.3 percent on tax liability more than €763,000. Capital gains are generally taxed as
income, but preferential rate sometimes apply: i.e. a reduced capital gains tax rate of 19 percent
applies to long-term capital gains. A ten percent surtax applies to both long-term and short-term
capital gains. Smaller companies are subject to a reduced rate.
Individual tax
Progressive rates apply up to 48.09 percent.
Indirect tax
In addition to the duties levied under the Common External Tariff, goods imported into France are
also subject to a value-added Tax (VAT). Currently, the VAT in France is generally charged at one
of two rates:
-- The standard rate of 19.6 percent.
-- The reduced rate of 5.5 percent, applicable mostly to agricultural products and foodstuffs,
original artworks and certain medicines.
France Review 2016
France
VAT must be added to the price of all goods and services sold in France in connection with an
industrial or commercial activity. The supplier of any good or service bills his customer at his
selling price, plus the amount of VAT at the applicable rate. The supplier collects the full amount,
subtracts his own VAT expenditures from the total amount of VAT collected, and periodically pays
over the difference to the tax authorities.
Tax treaties
France is a party to more than 110 tax treaties with other countries.
Stock Market
In 2000, the Paris Bourse, Amsterdam Exchange, and Brussels Exchange merged to form
EURONEXT, the largest exchange in Western Europe. Over 1,860 companies are listed on the
exchange.
Foreign investment is unrestricted and there is free repatriation of profits, dividends and capital.
For more information on the Paris Stock Exchange and its role in EURONEXT, see URL:
http://www.bourse-de-paris.fr/Default.htm.
Partner Links
Partner Links
France Review 2016
France
France Review 2016
France
Chapter 5
Social Overview
France Review 2016
France
People
Cultural Demography
The estimated total population of France is approximately 63 million, making it one of the most
populous states in Western Europe. Since prehistoric times, France has been a crossroads of trade,
travel, and invasion. Its location as a commercial, geographic and political crossroads has
influenced France's past as well as its present-day, most especially in terms of its population.
Ethnicity
Three basic European ethnic stocks -- Celtic, Latin, and Teutonic (Frankish) -- have blended over
the centuries to make up the majority of France's population today. Traditionally, however, France
has had a high level of immigration, and so the country's ethnic composition has become more
diverse over the years, extending beyond its European ethnic roots. In this way, in addition to
predominant Celtic, Latin and Teutonic ethnic groups, France is also home to Slavic, Basque, East
and Southeast Asian, North African and Middle Eastern ethnic minorities.
Language
French is the official and predominant language of France. The French language derives from the
vernacular Latin spoken by the Romans in Gaul, although it includes many Celtic and Germanic
words. French has been an international language for centuries and is a common second language
throughout the world. It is one of five official languages at the United Nations. In Africa, Asia, the
Pacific, and the West Indies, French has been a unifying factor, particularly in those countries
where it serves as the only common language among a variety of indigenous languages and
dialects. French aside, several regional dialects and languages are spoken, including Provencal,
Breton, Alsatian, Corsican, Catalan, Basque and Flemish.
Religion
In terms of religious affiliation, approximately 88 percent of the French are Roman Catholic, about
5 percent are Muslim, 2 percent are Protestant, while 1 percent of the population is Jewish; the
France Review 2016
France
remaining 4 percent belong to other religions or are not affiliated at all. A large segment of the
Muslim population is made up of North African workers who immigrated to France in the 1960s
and early 1970s. Algeria is reportedly the country of origin for most of this group.
Birth Rates, Life Expectancy, and Mortality
France's birth rate was among the highest in Europe from 1945 until the late 1960s. Since then, its
birth rate has fallen but remains higher than that of most other west European countries. Estimates
of birth rates in recent years reported 11.94 births per 1,000 population. The infant mortality rate is
4.41 deaths per 1,000 births. According to recent estimates, life expectancy at birth in France is
approximately 79 years for the total population; for males, life expectancy is just over 75 years of
age; for females, life expectancy is just over 83 years of age.
Literacy and Educatiom
The literacy rate in France, as with many Western European countries, is very high with 99 percent
literacy for both men and women. Education in France is free, beginning at age 2, and mandatory
between ages 6 and 16. The public education system is highly centralized. Private education is
primarily adminstered by the Roman Catholic church and associated institutions. Higher education
in France began with the founding of the University of Paris in 1150. It now consists of 69
universities and special schools, such as the Grandes Ecoles, technical colleges, and vocational
training institutions. About 5.6 percent of GDP is spent on educational expenditures.
Standard of Living
France is a wealthy country and citizens enjoy a very high standard of living, with a high gross
domestic product per capita. About of 3.5 percent of GDP is spent on health expenditures in this
country. Access to education, sanitation, water, and health is regarded to be very good.
Human Development
One notable measure used to determine a country's quality of life is the Human Development
Index (HDI), which has been compiled annually since 1990 by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP). The HDI is a composite of several indicators, which measure a country's
achievements in three main arenas of human development: longevity, knowledge and education, as
well as economic standard of living. In recent rankings of 169 countries, the HDI has placed Fance
in the very high human development category, at 14th place.
France Review 2016
France
Editor's Note: Although the concept of human development is complicated and cannot be properly
captured by values and indices, the HDI, which is calculated and updated annually, offers a wideranging assessment of human development in certain countries, not based solely upon traditional
economic and financial indicators.
Written by Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, www.countrywatch.com; see
Bibliography for research sources.
Human Development Index (Ranked Numerically)
The Human Development Index (HDI) is used to measure quality of life in countries across the
world. The HDI has been compiled since 1990 by the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) on a regular basis. The HDI is a composite of several indicators, which measure a
country's achievements in three main arenas of human development: longevity, education, and
economic standard of living. Although the concept of human development is complicated and
cannot be properly captured by values and indices, the HDI offers a wide-ranging assessment of
human development in certain countries, not based solely upon traditional economic and financial
indicators. For more information about the methodology used to calculate the HDI, please see the
"Source Materials" in the appendices of this review.
Very High
Human
Development
High Human
Development
Medium Human
Development
Low Human
Development
1. Norway
43. Bahamas
86. Fiji
128. Kenya
2. Australia
44. Lithuania
87. Turkmenistan
129. Bangladesh
France Review 2016
France
3. New Zealand
45. Chile
88. Dominican
Republic
130. Ghana
4. United States
46. Argentina
89. China
131. Cameroon
5. Ireland
47. Kuwait
90. El Salvador
132. Myanmar
(Burma)
6. Liechtenstein
48. Latvia
91. Sri Lanka
133. Yemen
7. Netherlands
49. Montenegro
92. Thailand
134. Benin
8. Canada
50. Romania
93. Gabon
135.
Madagascar
9. Sweden
51. Croatia
94. Surname
136. Mauritania
10. Germany
52. Uruguay
95. Bolivia
137. Papua
New Guinea
11. Japan
53. Libya
96. Paraguay
138. Nepal
12. South Korea
54. Panama
97. Philippines
139. Togo
13. Switzerland
55. Saudi Arabia
98. Botswana
140. Comoros
14. France
56. Mexico
99. Moldova
141. Lesotho
15. Israel
57. Malaysia
100. Mongolia
142. Nigeria
16. Finland
58. Bulgaria
101. Egypt
143. Uganda
17. Iceland
59. Trinidad and Tobago
102. Uzbekistan
144. Senegal
18. Belgium
60. Serbia
103. Micronesia
145. Haiti
19. Denmark
61. Belarus
104. Guyana
146. Angola
France Review 2016
France
20. Spain
62. Costa Rica
105. Namibia
147. Djibouti
21. Hong King
63. Peru
106. Honduras
148. Tanzania
22. Greece
64. Albania
107. Maldives
149. Cote
d'Ivoire
23. Italy
65. Russian Federation
108. Indonesia
150. Zambia
24. Luxembourg
66. Kazakhstan
109. Kyrgyzstan
151. Gambia
25. Austria
67. Azerbaijan
110. South Africa
152. Rwanda
26. United
Kingdom
68. Bosnia and
Herzegovina
111. Syria
153. Malawi
27. Singapore
69. Ukraine
112. Tajikistan
154. Sudan
28. Czech
Republic
70. Iran
113. Vietnam
155.
Afghanistan
29. Slovenia
71. The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia
114. Morocco
156. Guinea
30. Andorra
72. Mauritius
115. Nicaragua
157. Ethiopia
116. Guatemala
158. Sierra
Leone
31. Slovakia
73. Brazil
32. United Arab
Emirates
74. Georgia
117. Equatorial
Guinea
159. Central
African
Republic
33. Malta
75. Venezuela
118. Cape Verde
160. Mali
119. India
161. Burkina
Faso
34. Estonia
France Review 2016
76. Armenia
France
35. Cyprus
77. Ecuador
120. East Timor
162. Liberia
36. Hungary
78. Belize
121. Swaziland
163. Chad
37. Brunei
79. Colombia
122. Laos
164. GuineaBissau
38. Qatar
80. Jamaica
123. Solomon
Islands
165.
Mozambique
39. Bahrain
81. Tunisia
124. Cambodia
166. Burundi
40. Portugal
82. Jordan
125. Pakistan
167. Niger
41. Poland
83. Turkey
126. Congo RC
168. Congo
DRC
42. Barbados
84. Algeria
127. Sao Tome
and Principe
169. Zimbabwe
85. Tonga
Methodology:
For more information about the methodology used to calculate the HDI, please see the "Source
Materials" in the appendices of this Country Review.
Reference:
As published in United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report 2010.
Source:
United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Index available at URL:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
France Review 2016
France
Updated:
Uploaded in 2011 using ranking available; reviewed in 2015
Created by Adrian G. White, an Analytic Social Psychologist at the University of Leicester, the
"Satisfaction with Life Index" measures subjective life satisfaction across various countries. The
data was taken from a metastudy (see below for source) and associates the notion of subjective
happiness or life satisfaction with qualitative parameters such as health, wealth, and access to
basic education. This assessment serves as an alternative to other measures of happiness that tend
to rely on traditional and quantitative measures of policy on quality of life, such as GNP and GDP.
The methodology involved the responses of 80,000 people across the globe.
Rank
Country
Score
1
Denmark
273.4
2
Switzerland
273.33
3
Austria
260
4
Iceland
260
5
The Bahamas
256.67
6
Finland
256.67
7
Sweden
256.67
France Review 2016
France
8
Iran
253.33
9
Brunei
253.33
10
Canada
253.33
11
Ireland
253.33
12
Luxembourg
253.33
13
Costa Rica
250
14
Malta
250
15
Netherlands
250
16
Antiguaand Barbuda
246.67
17
Malaysia
246.67
18
New Zealand
246.67
19
Norway
246.67
20
Seychelles
246.67
21
246.67
22
246.67
23
United States
246.67
24
Vanuatu
246.67
25
Venezuela
246.67
France Review 2016
France
26
Australia
243.33
27
Barbados
243.33
28
Belgium
243.33
29
Dominica
243.33
30
Oman
243.33
31
Saudi Arabia
243.33
32
Suriname
243.33
33
Bahrain
240
34
Colombia
240
35
Germany
240
36
Guyana
240
37
Honduras
240
38
Kuwait
240
39
Panama
240
40
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
240
41
United Kingdom
236.67
42
Dominican Republic
233.33
43
Guatemala
233.33
France Review 2016
France
44
Jamaica
233.33
45
Qatar
233.33
46
Spain
233.33
47
Saint Lucia
233.33
48
Belize
230
49
Cyprus
230
50
Italy
230
51
Mexico
230
52
Samoa
230
53
Singapore
230
54
Solomon Islands
230
55
Trinidad and Tobago
230
56
Argentina
226.67
57
Fiji
223.33
58
Israel
223.33
59
Mongolia
223.33
60
São Tomé and Príncipe
223.33
61
El Salvador
220
France Review 2016
France
62
France
220
63
Hong Kong
220
64
Indonesia
220
65
Kyrgyzstan
220
66
Maldives
220
67
Slovenia
220
68
Taiwan
220
69
East Timor
220
70
Tonga
220
71
Chile
216.67
72
Grenada
216.67
73
Mauritius
216.67
74
Namibia
216.67
75
Paraguay
216.67
76
Thailand
216.67
77
Czech Republic
213.33
78
Philippines
213.33
79
Tunisia
213.33
France Review 2016
France
80
Uzbekistan
213.33
81
Brazil
210
82
China
210
83
Cuba
210
84
Greece
210
85
Nicaragua
210
86
Papua New Guinea
210
87
Uruguay
210
88
Gabon
206.67
89
Ghana
206.67
90
Japan
206.67
91
Yemen
206.67
92
Portugal
203.33
93
Sri Lanka
203.33
94
Tajikistan
203.33
95
Vietnam
203.33
96
Bhutan
200
97
Comoros
196.67
France Review 2016
France
98
Croatia
196.67
99
Poland
196.67
100
Cape Verde
193.33
101
Kazakhstan
193.33
102
South Korea
193.33
103
Madagascar
193.33
104
Bangladesh
190
105
Republic of the Congo
190
106
The Gambia
190
107
Hungary
190
108
Libya
190
109
South Africa
190
110
Cambodia
186.67
111
Ecuador
186.67
112
Kenya
186.67
113
Lebanon
186.67
114
Morocco
186.67
115
Peru
186.67
France Review 2016
France
116
Senegal
186.67
117
Bolivia
183.33
118
Haiti
183.33
119
Nepal
183.33
120
Nigeria
183.33
121
Tanzania
183.33
122
Benin
180
123
Botswana
180
124
Guinea-Bissau
180
125
India
180
126
Laos
180
127
Mozambique
180
128
Palestinian Authority
180
129
Slovakia
180
130
Myanmar
176.67
131
Mali
176.67
132
Mauritania
176.67
133
Turkey
176.67
France Review 2016
France
134
Algeria
173.33
135
Equatorial Guinea
173.33
136
Romania
173.33
137
170
138
Cameroon
170
139
Estonia
170
140
Guinea
170
141
Jordan
170
142
Syria
170
143
Sierra Leone
166.67
144
Azerbaijan
163.33
145
163.33
146
Republic of Macedonia
163.33
147
Togo
163.33
148
Zambia
163.33
149
Angola
160
150
Djibouti
160
151
Egypt
160
France Review 2016
France
152
Burkina Faso
156.67
153
Ethiopia
156.67
154
Latvia
156.67
155
Lithuania
156.67
156
Uganda
156.67
157
Albania
153.33
158
Malawi
153.33
159
Chad
150
160
Côte d'Ivoire
150
161
Niger
150
162
Eritrea
146.67
163
Rwanda
146.67
164
Bulgaria
143.33
165
Lesotho
143.33
166
Pakistan
143.33
167
Russia
143.33
168
Swaziland
140
169
Georgia
136.67
France Review 2016
France
170
Belarus
133.33
171
Turkmenistan
133.33
172
Armenia
123.33
173
Sudan
120
174
Ukraine
120
175
Moldova
116.67
176
Democratic Republic of the Congo
110
177
Zimbabwe
110
178
Burundi
100
Commentary:
European countries, such as Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria resided at
the top of the ranking with highest levels of self-reported life satisfaction. Conversely, European
countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine ranked low on the index.
African countries such as Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe a n d Burundi found
themselves at the very bottom of the ranking, and indeed, very few African countries could be
found in the top 100. Japan was at the mid-way point in the ranking, however, other Asian
countries such as Brunei and Malaysia were in the top tier, while Pakistan was close to the bottom
with a low level of self-identified life satisfaction. As a region, the Middle East presented a mixed
bad with Saudi Arabians reporing healthy levels of life satisfaction and Egyptians near the bottom
of the ranking. As a region, Caribbean countries were ranked highly, consistently demonstrating
high levels of life satisfaction. The findings showed that health was the most crucial determining
factor in life satisfaction, followed by prosperity and education.
Source:
White, A. (2007). A Global Projection of Subjective Well-being: A Challenge To Positive
France Review 2016
France
Psychology? Psychtalk 56, 17-20. The data was extracted from a meta-analysis by Marks,
Abdallah, Simms & Thompson (2006).
Uploaded:
Based on study noted above in "Source" ; reviewed in 2015
Happy Planet Index
Happy Planet Index
The Happy Planet Index (HPI) is used to measure human well-being in conjunction with
environmental impact. The HPI has been compiled since 2006 by the New Economics
Foundation. The index is a composite of several indicators including subjective life satisfaction, life
expectancy at birth, and ecological footprint per capita.
As noted by NEFA, the HPI "reveals the ecological efficiency with which human well-being is
delivered." Indeed, the index combines environmental impact with human well-being to measure
the environmental efficiency with which, country by country, people live long and happy lives.
The countries ranked highest by the HPI are not necessarily the ones with the happiest people
overall, but the ones that allow their citizens to live long and fulfilling lives, without negatively
impacting this opportunity for either future generations or citizens of other countries. Accordingly,
a country like the United States will rank low on this list due to its large per capital ecological
footprint, which uses more than its fair share of resources, and will likely cause planetary damage.
It should be noted that the HPI was designed to be a counterpoint to other well-established indices
of countries' development, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which measures overall
national wealth and economic development, but often obfuscates the realities of countries with
stark variances between the rich and the poor. Moreover, the objective of most of the world's
people is not to be wealthy but to be happy. The HPI also differs from the Human Development
Index (HDI), which measures quality of life but not ecology, since it [HPI] also includes
sustainability as a key indicator.
France Review 2016
France
Rank
Country
HPI
1
Costa Rica
76.1
2
Dominican Republic
71.8
3
Jamaica
70.1
4
Guatemala
68.4
5
Vietnam
66.5
6
Colombia
66.1
7
Cuba
65.7
8
El Salvador
61.5
9
Brazil
61.0
10
Honduras
61.0
11
Nicaragua
60.5
12
Egypt
60.3
13
Saudi Arabia
59.7
14
Philippines
59.0
15
Argentina
59.0
16
Indonesia
58.9
17
Bhutan
58.5
France Review 2016
France
18
Panama
57.4
19
Laos
57.3
20
China
57.1
21
Morocco
56.8
22
Sri Lanka
56.5
23
Mexico
55.6
24
Pakistan
55.6
25
Ecuador
55.5
26
Jordan
54.6
27
Belize
54.5
28
Peru
54.4
29
Tunisia
54.3
30
Trinidad and Tobago
54.2
31
Bangladesh
54.1
32
Moldova
54.1
33
Malaysia
54.0
34
Tajikistan
53.5
35
India
53.0
France Review 2016
France
36
Venezuela
52.5
37
Nepal
51.9
38
Syria
51.3
39
Burma
51.2
40
Algeria
51.2
41
Thailand
50.9
42
Haiti
50.8
43
Netherlands
50.6
44
Malta
50.4
45
Uzbekistan
50.1
46
Chile
49.7
47
Bolivia
49.3
48
Armenia
48.3
49
Singapore
48.2
50
Yemen
48.1
51
Germany
48.1
52
Switzerland
48.1
53
Sweden
48.0
France Review 2016
France
54
Albania
47.9
55
Paraguay
47.8
56
Palestinian Authority
47.7
57
Austria
47.7
58
Serbia
47.6
59
Finland
47.2
60
Croatia
47.2
61
Kyrgyzstan
47.1
62
Cyprus
46.2
63
Guyana
45.6
64
Belgium
45.4
65
45.0
66
Slovenia
44.5
67
Israel
44.5
68
South Korea
44.4
69
Italy
44.0
70
Romania
43.9
71
France
43.9
France Review 2016
France
72
Georgia
43.6
73
Slovakia
43.5
74
United Kingdom
43.3
75
Japan
43.3
76
Spain
43.2
77
Poland
42.8
78
Ireland
42.6
79
Iraq
42.6
80
Cambodia
42.3
81
Iran
42.1
82
Bulgaria
42.0
83
Turkey
41.7
84
Hong Kong
41.6
85
Azerbaijan
41.2
86
Lithuania
40.9
87
Djibouti
40.4
88
Norway
40.4
89
Canada
39.4
France Review 2016
France
90
Hungary
38.9
91
Kazakhstan
38.5
92
Czech Republic
38.3
93
Mauritania
38.2
94
Iceland
38.1
95
Ukraine
38.1
96
Senegal
38.0
97
Greece
37.6
98
Portugal
37.5
99
Uruguay
37.2
100
Ghana
37.1
101
Latvia
36.7
102
Australia
36.6
103
New Zealand
36.2
104
Belarus
35.7
105
Denmark
35.5
106
Mongolia
35.0
107
Malawi
34.5
France Review 2016
France
108
Russia
34.5
109
Chad
34.3
110
Lebanon
33.6
111
Macedonia
32.7
112
Republic of the Congo
32.4
113
Madagascar
31.5
114
United States
30.7
115
Nigeria
30.3
116
Guinea
30.3
117
Uganda
30.2
118
South Africa
29.7
119
Rwanda
29.6
120
Democratic Republic of the Congo
29.0
121
Sudan
28.5
122
Luxembourg
28.5
123
28.2
124
Ethiopia
28.1
125
Kenya
27.8
France Review 2016
France
126
Cameroon
27.2
127
Zambia
27.2
128
Kuwait
27.0
129
Niger
26.9
130
Angola
26.8
131
Estonia
26.4
132
Mali
25.8
133
Mozambique
24.6
134
Benin
24.6
135
Togo
23.3
136
Sierra Leone
23.1
137
22.9
138
Burkina Faso
22.4
139
Burundi
21.8
140
Namibia
21.1
141
Botswana
20.9
142
Tanzania
17.8
143
Zimbabwe
16.6
France Review 2016
France
Source: This material is derived from the Happy Planet Index issued by the New Economics
Foundation (NEF).
Methodology: T h e m e t h o d o l o g y f o r t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s c a n b e f o u n d a t U R L :
http://www.happyplanetindex.org/
Status of Women
Gender Related Development Index (GDI) Rank:
16th out 140
Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) Rank:
Not Ranked
Female Population:
31.1 million
Female Life Expectancy at birth:
83.0 years
Total Fertility Rate:
1.9
Maternal Mortality Ratio (2000):
17
Total Number of Women Living with HIV/AIDS:
France Review 2016
France
23,000-79,000
Ever Married Women, Ages 15-19 (%):
<1%
Mean Age at Time of Marriage:
30%
Contraceptive Use Among Married Women, Any Method (%):
75%
Female Adult Literacy Rate:
N/A -- almost universal
Combined Female Gross enrollment ratio for Primary, Secondary and Tertiary schools:
94%
Female-Headed Households (%):
24%
Economically Active Females (%):
49.3%
Female Contributing Family Workers (%):
N/A
Female Estimated Earned Income:
$20,642
Seats in Parliament held by women (%):
Lower or Single House: 12.2%
Upper House or Senate: 16.9%
France Review 2016
France
Year Women Received the Right to Vote:
1944
Year Women Received the Right to Stand for Election:
1944
*The Gender Development Index (GDI) is a composite index which measures the average
achievement in a country. While very similar to the Human Development Index in its use of the
same variables, the GDI adjusts the average achievement of each country in terms of life
expectancy, enrollment in schools, income, and literacy in accordance to the disparities between
males and females.
*The Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) is a composite index measuring gender inequality in
three of the basic dimensions of empowerment; economic participation and decision-making,
political participation and decision-making, and power over economic resources.
*Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is defined as the average number of babies born to women during their
reproductive years. A TFR of 2.1 is considered the replacement rate; once a TFR of a population
reaches 2.1 the population will remain stable assuming no immigration or emigration takes place.
When the TFR is greater than 2.1 a population will increase and when it is less than 2.1 a
population will eventually decrease, although due to the age structure of a population it will take
years before a low TFR is translated into lower population.
*Maternal Mortality Rate is the number of deaths to women per 100,000 live births that resulted
from conditions related to pregnancy and or delivery related complications.
*Economically Active Females are the share of the female population, ages 15 and above, whom
supply, or are able to supply, labor for the production of goods and services.
*Female Contributing Family Workers are those females who work without pay in an economic
enterprise operated by a relative living in the same household.
*Estimated Earned Income is measured according to Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) in US
dollars.
France Review 2016
France
Editor's Note:
The Global Gender Gap Index by the World Economic Forum ranks most of the world’s countries
in terms of the division of resources and opportunities among males and females. Specifically, the
ranking assesses the gender inequality gap in these four arenas:
1. Economic participation and opportunity (salaries and high skilled employment participation
levels)
2. Educational attainment (access to basic and higher level education)
3. Political empowerment (representation in decision-making structures)
4. Health and survival (life expectancy and sex ratio)
2010
rank
2010
score
2010
rank
among
2009
countries
Iceland
1
0.8496
1
1
0.8276
4
0.7999
4
Norway
2
0.8404
2
3
0.8227
1
0.8239
2
Finland
3
0.8260
3
2
0.8252
2
0.8195
3
Sweden
4
0.8024
4
4
0.8139
3
0.8139
1
New
Zealand
5
0.7808
5
5
0.7880
5
0.7859
5
Ireland
6
0.7773
6
8
0.7597
8
0.7518
9
2009
rank
2009
score
2008
rank
2008
score
2007
rank
Country
France Review 2016
France
Denmark
7
0.7719
7
7
0.7628
7
0.7538
8
Lesotho
8
0.7678
8
10
0.7495
16
0.7320
26
Philippines
9
0.7654
9
9
0.7579
6
0.7568
6
Switzerland
10
0.7562
10
13
0.7426
14
0.7360
40
Spain
11
0.7554
11
17
0.7345
17
0.7281
10
South Africa
12
0.7535
12
6
0.7709
22
0.7232
20
Germany
13
0.7530
13
12
0.7449
11
0.7394
7
Belgium
14
0.7509
14
33
0.7165
28
0.7163
19
United
Kingdom
15
0.7460
15
15
0.7402
13
0.7366
11
Sri Lanka
16
0.7458
16
16
0.7402
12
0.7371
15
Netherlands
17
0.7444
17
11
0.7490
9
0.7399
12
Latvia
18
0.7429
18
14
0.7416
10
0.7397
13
United
States
19
0.7411
19
31
0.7173
27
0.7179
31
Canada
20
0.7372
20
25
0.7196
31
0.7136
18
Trinidad and
Tobago
21
0.7353
21
19
0.7298
19
0.7245
46
Mozambique
22
0.7329
22
26
0.7195
18
0.7266
43
Australia
23
0.7271
23
20
0.7282
21
0.7241
17
France Review 2016
France
Cuba
24
0.7253
24
29
0.7176
25
0.7195
22
Namibia
25
0.7238
25
32
0.7167
30
0.7141
29
Luxembourg
26
0.7231
26
63
0.6889
66
0.6802
58
Mongolia
27
0.7194
27
22
0.7221
40
0.7049
62
Costa Rica
28
0.7194
28
27
0.7180
32
0.7111
28
Argentina
29
0.7187
29
24
0.7211
24
0.7209
33
Nicaragua
30
0.7176
30
49
0.7002
71
0.6747
90
Barbados
31
0.7176
31
21
0.7236
26
0.7188
n/a
Portugal
32
0.7171
32
46
0.7013
39
0.7051
37
Uganda
33
0.7169
33
40
0.7067
43
0.6981
50
Moldova
34
0.7160
34
36
0.7104
20
0.7244
21
Lithuania
35
0.7132
35
30
0.7175
23
0.7222
14
Bahamas
36
0.7128
36
28
0.7179
n/a
n/a
n/a
Austria
37
0.7091
37
42
0.7031
29
0.7153
27
Guyana
38
0.7090
38
35
0.7108
n/a
n/a
n/a
Panama
39
0.7072
39
43
0.7024
34
0.7095
38
Ecuador
40
0.7072
40
23
0.7220
35
0.7091
44
Kazakhstan
41
0.7055
41
47
0.7013
45
0.6976
32
France Review 2016
France
Slovenia
42
0.7047
42
52
0.6982
51
0.6937
49
Poland
43
0.7037
43
50
0.6998
49
0.6951
60
Jamaica
44
0.7037
44
48
0.7013
44
0.6980
39
Russian
Federation
45
0.7036
45
51
0.6987
42
0.6994
45
France
46
0.7025
46
18
0.7331
15
0.7341
51
Estonia
47
0.7018
47
37
0.7094
37
0.7076
30
Chile
48
0.7013
48
64
0.6884
65
0.6818
86
Macedonia,
FYR
49
0.6996
49
53
0.6950
53
0.6914
35
Bulgaria
50
0.6983
50
38
0.7072
36
0.7077
25
Kyrgyz
Republic
51
0.6973
51
41
0.7058
41
0.7045
70
Israel
52
0.6957
52
45
0.7019
56
0.6900
36
Croatia
53
0.6939
53
54
0.6944
46
0.6967
16
Honduras
54
0.6927
54
62
0.6893
47
0.6960
68
Colombia
55
0.6927
55
56
0.6939
50
0.6944
24
Singapore
56
0.6914
56
84
0.6664
84
0.6625
77
Thailand
57
0.6910
57
59
0.6907
52
0.6917
52
Greece
58
0.6908
58
85
0.6662
75
0.6727
72
France Review 2016
France
Uruguay
59
0.6897
59
57
0.6936
54
0.6907
78
Peru
60
0.6895
60
44
0.7024
48
0.6959
75
China
61
0.6881
61
60
0.6907
57
0.6878
73
Botswana
62
0.6876
62
39
0.7071
63
0.6839
53
Ukraine
63
0.6869
63
61
0.6896
62
0.6856
57
Venezuela
64
0.6863
64
69
0.6839
59
0.6875
55
Czech
Republic
65
0.6850
65
74
0.6789
69
0.6770
64
Tanzania
66
0.6829
66
73
0.6797
38
0.7068
34
Romania
67
0.6826
67
70
0.6805
70
0.6763
47
Malawi
68
0.6824
68
76
0.6738
81
0.6664
87
Paraguay
69
0.6804
69
66
0.6868
100
0.6379
69
Ghana
70
0.6782
70
80
0.6704
77
0.6679
63
Slovak
Republic
71
0.6778
71
68
0.6845
64
0.6824
54
Vietnam
72
0.6776
72
71
0.6802
68
0.6778
42
Dominican
Republic
73
0.6774
73
67
0.6859
72
0.6744
65
Italy
74
0.6765
74
72
0.6798
67
0.6788
84
France Review 2016
France
Gambia,
The
75
0.6762
75
75
0.6752
85
0.6622
95
Bolivia
76
0.6751
76
82
0.6693
80
0.6667
80
Brueni
Darussalem
77
0.6748
77
94
0.6524
99
0.6392
n/a
Albania
78
0.6726
78
91
0.6601
87
0.6591
66
Hungary
79
0.6720
79
65
0.6879
60
0.6867
61
Madagascar
80
0.6713
80
77
0.6732
74
0.6736
89
Angola
81
0.6712
81
106
0.6353
114
0.6032
110
Bangladesh
82
0.6702
82
93
0.6526
90
0.6531
100
Malta
83
0.6695
83
88
0.6635
83
0.6634
76
Armenia
84
0.6669
84
90
0.6619
78
0.6677
71
Brazil
85
0.6655
85
81
0.6695
73
0.6737
74
Cyprus
86
0.6642
86
79
0.6706
76
0.6694
82
Indonesia
87
0.6615
87
92
0.6580
93
0.6473
81
Georgia
88
0.6598
88
83
0.6680
82
0.6654
67
Tajikistan
89
0.6598
89
86
0.6661
89
0.6541
79
El Salvador
90
0.6596
90
55
0.6939
58
0.6875
48
Mexico
91
0.6577
91
98
0.6503
97
0.6441
93
France Review 2016
France
Zimbabwe
92
0.6574
92
95
0.6518
92
0.6485
88
Belize
93
0.6536
93
87
0.6636
86
0.6610
94
Japan
94
0.6524
94
101
0.6447
98
0.6434
91
Mauritius
95
0.6520
95
96
0.6513
95
0.6466
85
Kenya
96
0.6499
96
97
0.6512
88
0.6547
83
Cambodia
97
0.6482
97
104
0.6410
94
0.6469
98
Malaysia
98
0.6479
98
100
0.6467
96
0.6442
92
Maldives
99
0.6452
99
99
0.6482
91
0.6501
99
Azerbaijan
100
0.6446
100
89
0.6626
61
0.6856
59
Senegal
101
0.6414
101
102
0.6427
n/a
n/a
n/a
Suriname
102
0.6407
102
78
0.6726
79
0.6674
56
United Arab
Emirates
103
0.6397
103
112
0.6198
105
0.6220
105
Korea, Rep.
104
0.6342
104
115
0.6146
108
0.6154
97
Kuwait
105
0.6318
105
105
0.6356
101
0.6358
96
Zambia
106
0.6293
106
107
0.6310
106
0.6205
101
Tunisia
107
0.6266
107
109
0.6233
103
0.6295
102
Fiji
108
0.6256
108
103
0.6414
n/a
n/a
n/a
Guatemala
109
0.6238
109
111
0.6209
112
0.6072
106
France Review 2016
France
Bahrain
110
0.6217
110
116
0.6136
121
0.5927
115
Burkina
Faso
111
0.6162
111
120
0.6081
115
0.6029
117
India
112
0.6155
112
114
0.6151
113
0.6060
114
Mauritania
113
0.6152
113
119
0.6103
110
0.6117
111
Cameroon
114
0.6110
114
118
0.6108
117
0.6017
116
Nepal
115
0.6084
115
110
0.6213
120
0.5942
125
Lebanon*
116
0.6084
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Qatar
117
0.6059
116
125
0.5907
119
0.5948
109
Nigeria
118
0.6055
117
108
0.6280
102
0.6339
107
Algeria
119
0.6052
118
117
0.6119
111
0.6111
108
Jordan
120
0.6048
119
113
0.6182
104
0.6275
104
Ethiopia
121
0.6019
120
122
0.5948
122
0.5867
113
Oman
122
0.5950
121
123
0.5938
118
0.5960
119
Iran
123
0.5933
122
128
0.5839
116
0.6021
118
Syria
124
0.5926
123
121
0.6072
107
0.6181
103
Egypt
125
0.5899
124
126
0.5862
124
0.5832
120
Turkey
126
0.5876
125
129
0.5828
123
0.5853
121
Morocco
127
0.5767
126
124
0.5926
125
0.5757
122
France Review 2016
France
Benin
128
0.5719
127
131
0.5643
126
0.5582
123
Saudi Arabia
129
0.5713
128
130
0.5651
128
0.5537
124
Côte
d'Ivoire*
130
0.5691
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Mali
131
0.5680
129
127
0.5860
109
0.6117
112
Pakistan
132
0.5465
130
132
0.5458
127
0.5549
126
Chad
133
0.5330
131
133
0.5417
129
0.5290
127
Yemen
134
0.4603
132
134
0.4609
130
0.4664
128
Belarus
n/a
n/a
n/a
34
0.7141
33
0.7099
23
Uzbekistan
n/a
n/a
n/a
58
0.6913
55
0.6906
41
*new country 2010
Commentary:
According to the report’s index, Nordic countries, such as Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden
have continued to dominate at the top of the ranking for gender equality. Meanwhile, France has
seen a notable decline in the ranking, largely as a result of decreased number of women holding
ministerial portfolios in that country. In the Americas, the United States has risen in the ranking to
top the region, predominantly as a result of a decreasing wage gap, as well as higher number of
women holding key positions in the current Obama administration. Canada has continued to
remain as one of the top ranking countries of the Americas, followed by the small Caribbean island
nation of Trinidad and Tobago, which has the distinction of being among the top three countries of
the Americans in the realm of gender equality. Lesotho and South African ranked highly in the
France Review 2016
France
index, leading not only among African countries but also in global context. Despite Lesotho still
lagging in the area of life expectancy, its high ranking was attributed to high levels of female
participation in the labor force and female literacy. The Philippines and Sri Lanka were the top
ranking countries for gender equality for Asia, ranking highly also in global context. The
Philippines has continued to show strong performance in all strong performance on all four
dimensions (detailed above) of the index. Finally, in the Arab world, the United Arab Emirates
held the highest-rank within that region of the world; however, its placement near the bottom of
the global list highlights the fact that Arab countries are generally poor performers when it comes
to the matter of gender equality in global scope.
Source:
This data is derived from the latest edition of The Global Gender Gap Report by the World
Economic Forum.
Available at URL:
http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Women%20Leaders%20and%20Gender%20Parity/GenderGapNetw
Updated:
Based on latest available data as set forth in chart; reviewed in 2014
Culture and Arts
Culture and Arts of France
Music
Classical --In the Middle Ages, high music culture centered on the church and royal court activities. The
Gregorian chant was used in ceremonies of the Holy Roman Church. In the twelfth century
French composers used the church chants to innovate a more elaborate style of polyphonic singing
The Medieval French chanson owes its development to Philippe de Vitry (1291-1361) who wrote
France Review 2016
France
the musical treatise, Ars nova that expanded the system of musical notation formerly based on the
old notation system of sacred music. Vitry’s treatise paved the way for the development of highly
lyrical secular music as well as enriched the sound of the polyphonic Gregorian chants. The priest
and poet, Guillaume de Machaut (1300-1377), used the musical structures developed by Vitry to
refine troubadour music styles of the ballade, virelai, and rondeau, as well as compose such fine
masses as the Messe de Notre Dame.
The Burgundian composer Guillaume Dufay (1400-1474) is perhaps the most important French
composer of his day. Often considered the bridge that leads the music from Middle Age into the
new styles of the Renaissance, Dufay’s musical compositions were found in cathedral repertoires
across Western renaissance Europe. The other great composer during the Renaissance is Josquin
Desprez (1440-1521) whose musical compositions are said to represent the very best in both
secular and ecclesiastical music.
Until the period of the Baroque, French composers contributed very little original music to Western
Europe. Overshadowed by their Italian, Flemish, English and German counterparts, it was not
until the arrival of multitalented Jean-Baptiste Lully (1632-1687) to the French court, that French
music became distinguished once again. Lully used his being a favorite to King Louis XIV to
monopolize the style of court music and to some extent, the greater musical direction in France,
thereby solidifying a rather high standard of musical quality. His influence over Louis XIV was
useful in his eliminating any competition that would threaten his pocketbook or threaten his
reputation as the leading Royal musician. After the Death of Lully, Baroque composers Francois
Couperin le Grand (1668-1733), who fused French and Italian styles and Jean-Philippe Rameau
(1683-1764), who composed operas and harpsichord pieces, established themselves as the leading
Baroque musicians.
The Romantic period proved to be a strong period of French innovation in composition. Romantic
composer Louis-Hector Berlioz (1803-1869) broke with traditional musical standards of Classicism
to compose such masterpieces as Symphonie fantastique and La damnation de Faust. Charles
Gounod (1818-1893) composed the opera Faust: Camille Saint-Saens (1835-1921) composed
Samson et Dalil; Georges Bizet (1838-1875) wrote Carmen.
Two composers to react against Romanticism were Claude Debussy (1862-1918) and Maurice
Ravel (1875-1937), whose admiration of Claude Monet’s paintings, inspired the Impressionist
movement in music. These composers held the belief that music should be simple, understated
and spontaneous. Breaking from the tradition of Romanticism and Impressionism and also
influenced by the eccenteric composer Erik Satie (1866-1925) a group of composers known as Les
Six , Darius Milhaud (1892-1974), Arther Honegger (1892-1955), Francis Poulenc (1899-1963)
Chanson---Maurice Chevalier (1888-1972)
France Review 2016
France
Edith Piaf (1915-1963)
Georges Brassens (1921-1981)
Jacques Brel (1929-1978)
Mistinguett (1875-1956)
Yves Montand (1921-1992)
Barbara
Jazz--Django Reinhardt (1910-1953) guitarist
Stephane Grappelli (1908-1997) jazz violinist
Jean-Luc Ponty (b. 1942) violist
Bireli Lagrene (b. 1966) guitarist
Contemporary---Daft Punk
Air
Gypsy Kings
MC Solar
http://www.newyorkstreaming.com/EdithPiaf/default.htm
http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/g_chanson.html
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Blair/Courses/MUSL242/dufayel.htm
http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/label_france/ENGLISH/DOSSIER/musique/06rock_francais.html
http://www.jazzfrance.com/en/
http://www.medieval.org/music/early/medren.txt
http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/DF_music.shtml
Art
The artistic tradition in France begins with influence of Christianity and Charlemagne’s unification
of the Celtic tribes in the 8th century. Under the direction of Charlemagne (742-814), a significant
number of churches were built. Soon after Charlemagne’s building of religious structures the first
French artistic movement was born, the Romanesque. Noted for their massive structures, ornate
stone carved arches and pinnacles with stone carved statues overlooking the roofs on to the sinners
below, French cathedrals, are a breathtaking sight. Gothic architecture is a true French innovation
taken from the Romanesque. The most famous piece of Gothic architecture is the Notre Dame
Cathedral in Paris whose construction began in 1163 and St. Etienne Cathedral in Bourges is
another Gothic masterpiece that took sixty years to build.
France Review 2016
France
http://208.154.71.60/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,20754+1+20436,00.html
http://www.etchings.com/erin/files/poussin.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/8063/carolingian.html
France has produced many world-famous painters. Perhaps the most well known are the
Impressionists, who revolutionized painting in the second half of the 19th century. Édouard Manet,
Claude Monet and Pierre Auguste Renoir developed new techniques to depict light and movement
in landscapes and scenes from modern life. Edgar Degas, Paul Cézanne, Paul Gauguin and Henri
de Toulouse-Lautrec were also innovative artists who made Paris the centre for modern art at the
turn of the century. Foreign artists flocked to the city to study and work.
France also attracts admirers of great architecture. Its architectural heritage includes mediaeval
castles, Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals, Renaissance and Baroque palaces, Art Nouveau and
Art Deco houses and civic buildings, and outstanding examples of modern architecture.
http://www.alco-hs.odedodea.edu/aes/tag/art/michelle.htm
http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/Art/DF_art.shtml
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/venir/f_tour.gb.html
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/bnf/bnf0003.html
http://www.louvre.fr/louvrea.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06190a.htm
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/world/A0860786.html
http://www.vivelavie.com/viva/collectibles/frenchper.htm
http://ebooks.whsmithonline.co.uk/encyclopedia/64/M0014864.htm
http://www.kirschnet.com/bome/cities/paris/hband/architecture_prehist.html
http://arthistory.about.com/arts/arthistory/library/blartists.htm
http://arthistory.about.com/arts/arthistory/library/weekly/aa061900a.htm
Literature
The life of Charlemagne provided several legends that became part of the French tradition of
lyrical and epic poetry called chanson de geste. The best-known major epic associated with the
events surrounding Charlemagne’s conquests is The Song of Roland written around 1200 by an
unknown author. The satirical tales of Roman de Renart, allegorical stories by which the poet
mocks the feudal society through adventures of the animal kingdom, were very popular methods of
entertainment as well as useful tools of social criticism.
The two great French poets of the Middle Ages were Marie de France (1140-1200) and François
Villon (1431-1463?). Marie de France is the first major French poet as well as the first woman
poet of the French language. She is best known for innovating a style of verse, lais, a type of
France Review 2016
France
narrative poetry that expressed courtly love and adventure. Francois Villon’s (1431-1463?) erratic
life and his associations with both the very affluent as well as the very criminal are reflected in his
poems that reveal the medieval idea of the corrupt nature of man and express a morbid
preoccupation with death and the afterlife.
The Renaissance’s greatest writers were the humanists, learned men who broke with in antiquated
philosophies of the church and whose fascination with the character of man, Greek and Roman
classics, and the quality of life in the here and now rather than the afterlife, produced a radically
different literature from their predecessors. The satirist, François Rabelais (1485-1553), the
theologian, John Calvin (1509-1564) and the philosopher / essayist, Michel de Montaigne (15331592) are the best representatives of this period of French literature.
The father of modern philosophy, René Descartes (1596-1650) and Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
along with the poet and literary critic, François de Malherbe (1555-1628) ushered in a new era of
literary thought, called the Golden Age, based on human reasoning and logic which dictated literary
forms and usages of language. During this time François de la Rochefoucauld (1613-1680)
mastered the art of maxime, Jean de la Fontaine (1621-1695) was well known for his lyrical fables,
Marie-Madeleine de La Fayette (1634-1693) wrote the novel, Princess of Cleves.
Philosophers, who were in turn literary giants, dominated the literature of the Enlightenment.
Charles de Montesquieu (1689-1755) wrote The Spirit of Laws, a piece of literature that was to
inspire the system of government in the United States.
Voltaire (1694-1778) used his literary genius to master every available writing genre, (plays, poetry,
prose, philosophical essays, criticism, etc.). His amusing and thought provoking writings revealed
the deep-rooted flaws of human nature, making him one of the most famous satirists of all time.
Voltaire’s rival, the social critic, novelist and philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), is
particularly noted as a pre-romantic with his idea of the noble savage, and The Social Contract was
used by revolutionaries as ideological sparks to flame the fire of the French Revolution. The
philosopher and essayist, Denis Diederot (1713-1784) directed a team of writers (that included
among others, Rousseau and Voltaire) who wrote a twenty-eight volume Enccyclopedie, which also
held revolutionary ideas against the established doctrines of the church and state. All these men
suffered from censorship at some point in their careers.
During the Revolution one writer stands out above the rest, André Chénier (1762-1794). Chénier
actively wrote against the actions of both the revolutionaries and the monarchist; wrote poetry in
classic Greek forms, and while imprisoned for his moderate political stance, wrote the Iambes. As
legend has it, Chénier finished his last poem “La jeune captive” moments before he was lead to the
guillotine. Chénier’s strong ideals and feelings were elegantly expressed in his poetry. His use of
classic forms breathed new life into French verse, and his young life cut short inspired the
prototype of the man of feeling / martyr-poet for the next generations of innovative writers, the
Romantics.
France Review 2016
France
The great writers of the Romantic Movement were men and women who valued imagination over
reason, concerned themselves with the plight of the individual, and yet showed a profoundly
pessimistic view of society in their writings. Often the stories and poems had the element of the
fantastic with unrealistic situations in the plots, overly sentimental or bizarre characters. Victor
Hugo (1802-1885) produced an enormous amount of literature during this time, establishing
himself as the leading French Romantic writer. Alfred de Vigny (1797-1863), George Sand (18041876), Gerard de Nerval (1808-1855), and Alfred de Musset (1810-1857) are well known
Romantics.
The Realist who wrote within the same time frame as the Romantics differed primarily by the fact
that these writers paid close attention to detailed description of the events within their novels and
often explored the psychological perceptiveness of the characters. Honore de Balzac (1799-1850)
wrote The Human Comedy, a collection of short stories and novels, over a period of twenty
years. His writings are said to have to same depth and scope as that of Shakespeare. Stendhal
(1783-1842) and Gustave Flaubert (1821-1880) were also realists; Flaubert’s novel, Madame
Bovary, is written with an almost journalistic approach. Emile Zola (1840-1902), founder of
French Naturalism, applied a scientific approach to the development of the characters and plot.
Guy de Maupassant (1850-1893) influenced by Flaubert and Zola, and left a legacy of three
hundred short stories and six novels as well as travel literature and poetry.
Breaking with the romantic tradition were the Parnassians, lead by Leconte de Lisle (1818-1894),
followed by the Symbolists, writers who redefined the nature of poetry by writing both the beauty
and horrors of life, often unable to separate the two. This time period saw great changes in poetry;
Charles Baudelaire (1821-1867), pushed the poetic envelope, breaking with poetic forms and
creating new forms (prose poems and free verse); celebrating bohemianism, expressing deep rooted
despair, glorified and translated the writings of Edgar Allen Poe, chastising the bourgeoisie
mentality, and infused poetry with vivid, metaphysical, imagery. The poetry and criticisms of
Baudelaire forever changed the face of poetry; he is in fact considered the father of modern
poetry. Baudelaire’s fresh approach to writing stimulated the first group of Symbolists, Stephan
Mallarme (1842-1898), Paul Verlaine (1844-1896) and Arthur Rimbaud (1854-1891).
Other noteworthy artists -André Gide (1869-1951) received Nobel Prize in 1947
Marcel Proust (1871-1922)
Paul Valery (1871-1945) symbolist
Dada and Surrealism -Jean Cocteau (1889-1963)
France Review 2016
France
Often associated with the Dada movement, but always known as leaders of Surrealim Guillaume
Apollinaire (1880-1918), André Breton (1896-1966), Louis Aragon (1897-1982).
Also noteworthy are -Louis-Ferdinand Céline (1894-1661) Journey to the End of Night
Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900-1944) Le petit prince
Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980)
Albert Camus
Simon de Beauvoir
Nathalie Sarraute
Eugène Ionesco
Jean Genet
George Bernanos
François Mauriac
Alain Robbe-Grillet
http://www.bohemiabooks.com.au/eblinks/eb.htm
http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~romosan/surrealism.html
http://www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96jun/rousseau.html
http://www.literature.org/authors/de-balzac-honore/
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/bnf/bnf0002.html
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/3825/biography.html
http://faculty.msmc.edu/lindeman/piz3.html
http://athena.english.vt.edu/~maclaugh/frnsyn.htm
http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/Literature/DF_literature3.shtml
Theatre
The Three classic playwrights of French literature, Racine, Molière and Corneille, lived in the 17th
century. Molière's comedies satirized the vanities and foibles of human nature. Corneille and
Racine wrote noble verse tragedies.
They were followed in the 18th century by Marivaux, writer of romantic comedies, and
Beaumarchais whose Barber of Seville and Marriage of Figaro later became operas. Victor Hugo's
dramas were the most vigorous product of the 19th century. The exceptional dramatists of the 20th
century range from Jean Anoulih, author of urbane philosophical comedies, to Jean Genet, exconvict critic of the establishment.
In the 1960s, Eugene Ionesco from Romania and Samuel Beckett from Ireland were among the
France Review 2016
France
pioneers of a new genre, the "theatre of the absurd". Since then, no major playwrights have
emerged but experimental work flourishes in state-subsidized theatre companies.
Note on Cuisine
Partly due to the long traditions of the opulent feasts of the Royal dinner table of the past, partly
due to the fertile land and being wedged between the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea and the
Mediterranean Sea, producing some of the freshest tasting vegetables, fruits, animals of the sea, air
and land in Europe, the cook in the French kitchen can slice, dice, bake, fry, swirl, puff, puree,
sizzle, and sauté anything, pour a sauce over it, and call it gourmet. Many chefs claim that the
genius of French cuisine lies in the simplicity approach to preparing the food.
Note: The Greeks taught the Gauls how to cultivate wine in 6000 B.C.
Etiquette
Cultural Dos and Taboos
1. The firm handshake is the standard greeting for men and women, upon meeting and again upon
departure. Even children are encouraged to shake hands. When introduced to a woman, wait to see
if see extends her hand before offering to shake. In general, the woman offers her hand first. In
social settings, with friends, expect to do les bises, or touching cheeks and kissing the air. The
French may also kiss each other twice on the cheek. Hugging or embracing tends to occur only
among close friends and family.
2. Always rise to be introduced to someone. Note also that most greetings take place at a close
distance. Yelling hello across a room would be considered culturally inappropriate. Wait until the
person or persons with whom you are meeting are in close proximity to you where a polite greeting
can be exchanged.
3. One should use the formal form of address such as Mr. or Mrs. followed by a surname, unless
invited to move to a first name basis. Younger people are more apt to move to less formal forms of
address quickly, while children tend to address each other using first names. One should also use
France Review 2016
France
Madame for all women except young girls. If you speak French, use the vous form until you are
told to use tu. Outside the personal sphere, however, it is advisable that professional and
governmental titles be used. In business, titles are used more rarely in verbal communication
although they are customarily used in written communications.
4. Polite behavior towards strangers is the norm is France. For example, when entering or leaving a
shop, it is customary to greet and say goodbye to the clerk.
5. Culturally, French men tend to interact with women with a great deal of gallantry. Women
should not mistake French gallantry for condescension.
6. Note that eye contact among the French can be intense. One should be prepared for this type of
non-verbal communication. (This is a generalization, however, it may be a useful barometer of
para-language to consider.)
7. Inappropriate behavior in France includes talking with one's hands in one's pocket, chewing gum
in public, and slapping the open palm with a closed fist is vulgar. Note also that the American sign
for "okay" -- forming a circle with the thumb and forefinger -- means "zero" in France.
8. In conversation, sightseeing, positive aspects of local culture and society, as well as travel, are
considered to be good topics of conversation. The French tend to be well informed about cultural
and political issues, and so one should expect honest and opinionated expression of ideas in this
regard. One should, however, respect personal privacy and avoid personal questions or issues
during conversation. (Naturally, this is a generalization and should be treated as such.)
9. Note that the French tend to be culturally more animated in conversation than other Europeans,
peppering their discussions with gesticulation and animation. High-pitched voices and excited
gestures should not be mistaken for angry displays, as more often than not, they simply denote
great interest in the subject of discussion. (Again, this is a generalization and should be treated as
such.)
10. Dining is typically continental-style with the fork steadfastly held in the left hand and the knife
in the right hand. Wrists should remain on the table at meals and one should never place one's
hands in one's lap.
11. Wine is customarily included with meals. If you do not wish to drink, turning the glass down
before the meal will signal your preference not to partake of wine. Wine aside, other forms of
alcohol, such as hard liquor, and also smoking, are not encouraged before or during the meal as
they are thought to diminish the taste buds.
12. When invited to dinner at a French home, taking some sort of gift is suggested protocol. A
France Review 2016
France
bouquet of unwrapped flowers for your hostess is the preferred gift. Note that red roses, which are
reserved for courting, or chrysanthemums, should likely be avoided in bouquets. Fine chocolates
are another suggested item, especially in homes where children are present. Liqueur is another
option but should not be confused with any alcoholic offering. For example, wine is not a good gift
option as it has likely already been selected for dinner by the host. Note that gifts are customarily
presented before the party or dinner.
13. To express thanks (which is the suggested protocol), send a note the next day. The inclusion of
flowers or a basket of fruit is optional, although it will likely be very well-received by the host.
14. Although dress is Europe generally casual and should conform to the temperate climate, the
French are very conscious of self-presentation. Even in casual settings, clothing should be
somewhat stylish and well-tailored. Business wear is more conservative; suits are the norm for
both men and women. Makeup and jewelry for women is normal for women.
Travel Information
Please Note: This is a generalized travel guide and it is intended to coalesce several
resources, which a traveler might find useful, regardless of a particular destination. As
such, it does not include travel warnings for specific "hot spot" destinations.
For travel alerts and warnings, please see the United States Department of State's listings
available at URL:
http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings.html
Please note that travel to the following countries, based on these warnings, is ill-advised, or
should be undertaken with the utmost precaution:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea,
Honduras, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Niger,
Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Palestinian Territories of West Bank and Gaza,
Philippines areas of Sulu Archipelago, Mindanao, and southern Sulu Sea, Saudi Arabia,
Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen.
France Review 2016
France
International Travel Guide
Checklist for Travelers
1. Take out travel insurance to cover hospital treatment or medical evacuation. Overseas medical
costs are expensive to most international travelers, where one's domestic, nationalized or even
private health insurance plans will not provide coverage outside one's home country. Learn about
"reciprocal insurance plans" that some international health care companies might offer.
2. Make sure that one's travel insurance is appropriate. If one intends to indulge in adventurous
activities, such as parasailing, one should be sure that one is fully insured in such cases. Many
traditional insurance policies do not provide coverage in cases of extreme circumstances.
3. Take time to learn about one's destination country and culture. Read and learn about the place
one is traveling. Also check political, economic and socio-cultural developments at the destination
by reading country-specific travel reports and fact sheets noted below.
4. Get the necessary visas for the country (or countries) one intends to visit - but be aware that a
visa does not guarantee entry. A number of useful sites regarding visa and other entry requirements
are noted below.
5. Keep in regular contact with friends and relatives back at home by phone or email, and be sure
to leave a travel itinerary.
6. Protect one's personal information by making copies of one's passport details, insurance policy,
travelers checks and credit card numbers. Taking copies of such documents with you, while
leaving another collection copies with someone at home is also good practice for travelers. Taking
copies of one's passport photograph is also recommended.
7. Stay healthy by taking all possible precautions against illness. Also, be sure to take extra supplies
of prescription drugs along for the trip, while also taking time to pack general pharmaceutical
supplies, such as aspirin and other such painkillers, bandages, stomach ailment medication, antiinflammatory medication and anti-bacterial medication.
8. Do not carry illicit drugs. Understand that the punishment for possession or use of illegal drugs
in some countries may be capital punishment. Make sure your prescription drugs are legal in the
countries you plan to visit.
9. Know the laws of one's destination country and culture; be sure to understand the repercussions
of breaking those laws and regulations. Often the transparency and freedoms of the juridical
system at home is not consistent with that of one's destination country. Become aware of these
complexities and subtleties before you travel.
10. For longer stays in a country, or where the security situation is volatile, one should register
one's self and traveling companions at the local embassy or consulate of one's country of
citizenship.
11. Women should take care to be prepared both culturally and practically for traveling in a
France Review 2016
France
different country and culture. One should be sure to take sufficient supplies of personal feminine
products and prescription drugs. One should also learn about local cultural standards for women,
including norms of dressing. Be aware that it is simply inappropriate and unsafe for women to
travel alone in some countries, and take the necessary precautions to avoid risk-filled situations.
12. If one is traveling with small children, one should pack extra supplies, make arrangements with
the travel carrier for proper seating that would adequately accommodate children, infants or
toddlers. Note also that whether one is male of female, traveling with children means that one's
hands are thus not free to carry luggage and bags. Be especially aware that this makes one
vulnerable to pickpockets, thieves and other sorts of crime.
13. Make proper arrangements for accommodations, well in advance of one's arrival at a
destination. Some countries have limited accommodation, while others may have culturally
distinctive facilities. Learning about these practicalities before one travels will greatly aid the
enjoyment of one's trip.
14. Travel with different forms of currency and money (cash, traveler's checks and credit cards) in
anticipation that venues may not accept one or another form of money. Also, ensuring that one's
financial resources are not contained in one location, or by one person (if one is traveling with
others) can be a useful measure, in the event that one loses a wallet or purse.
15. Find out about transportation in the destination country. In some places, it might be advisable
to hire a local driver or taxi guide for safety reasons, while in other countries, enjoying one's travel
experience may well be enhanced by renting a vehicle and seeing the local sights and culture
independently. Costs may also be prohibitive for either of these choices, so again, prior planning is
suggested.
Safety and Security in France
The Government of France maintains a national anti-terrorism plan, "Vigipirate Renforce." Under
this plan, in times of heightened security concerns, the government mobilizes police and armed
forces and installs them at airports, train and metro stations, as well as other high profile locations
such as schools, embassies, and government installations.
In recent years, France has experienced political assassinations and random bombings. One U.S.
citizen was injured in these attacks, but none have been killed. All passengers on subways and
trains are urged to be aware of their surroundings and to report any unattended baggage to the
nearest authority.
The Basque Separatist Party (ETA) and the National Front for the Liberation of Corsica (FLNC)
continue to operate in the south of France and occasionally bomb local government institutions,
banks, travel agencies, etc. During the summer of 2001, there were seven politically motivated
bombings on the island of Corsica. No deaths were caused by any of these acts of terrorism.
However, Americans should remain vigilant when traveling to Corsica.
Violent civil disorder is rare in France. In the past, however, student demonstrations, labor protests
or other routine demonstrations have turned into violent confrontations between demonstrators and
France Review 2016
France
police. Americans are advised to avoid street demonstrations.
Note: This information is provided by the United States Department of State.
Source: United States Department of State Consular Information Sheets
Tips for Travelers
• Take out comprehensive travel insurance cover for medical expenses, accident to self and third
parties; and unexpected loss of cash, credit cards, passport and luggage.
• Be Prepared - check with your embassy, consulate, or appropriate government institution related
to travel before traveling.
• Motoring in France? Ask the RAC or AA for advice on special motor car requirements. Heavy
on-the-spot fines (as high as £500) can be imposed for motoring offences. Failure to pay can result
in the car being impounded. Driving licenses can also be confiscated and without a second driver
you will be unable to continue your journey by car. Don't leave baggage, particularly your
valuables, in unattended cars. Be wary of theft when attending to a puncture or stopping at traffic
lights, and in particular when driving cars hired in France with a '51' number plate
• When undertaking a long road journey in France plan your journey to take sufficient breaks. A
minimum break of at least 15 minutes after every two hours of driving is recommended.
• Don't get involved with drugs. The penalties are severe, and in addition to a stiff prison sentence
any smuggling offence will also attract a customs fine.
• Don't let go of your luggage at French airports, railway stations and other public places.
Unattended luggage may be removed and destroyed by security staff - notices to this effect are
prominently displayed. No compensation can be claimed for destroyed property.
• Beware of pickpockets and bag snatchers, particularly at railway stations, on public transport and
at crowded tourist sites. Report any loss as soon as possible at the nearest police station.
• Looking for holiday work? France has unemployment problems and there are fewer opportunities
now for seasonal work, e.g. grape picking. Don't count on this to pay for your trip home.
• Remember where you are staying. Keep a note of your hotel address. Enter next of kin details
into the back of your passport.
• Should you require emergency out-of-hours consular assistance (i.e. accident, serious illness or
death), a consular officer can be reached on (1) 44 51 31 00.
France Review 2016
France
Note: This information is directly quoted from the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth
Office.
Sources: United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Tips for Travelers in Paris
Paris: -- Gangs of thieves operate on the rail link from Charles de Gaulle Airport to downtown Paris by
preying on jet-lagged, luggage-burdened tourists. Often, one thief distracts the tourist with a
question about directions while an accomplice takes a momentarily unguarded backpack, briefcase
or purse. Thieves also time their thefts to coincide with train stops so that they may quickly exit the
car. Travelers may wish to consider traveling from the airport to the city by bus or taxi.
- There have been a number of violent armed robberies, including knife attacks, in the vicinity of
the Eiffel Tower late at night.
- There have been reports of robberies involving thieves on motorcycles who reach into a moving
car by opening the car door or reach through an open window to steal purses and other bags visible
inside. Those traveling by car in Paris should remember to keep windows closed and doors locked.
- The Number One Subway Line, which runs by many major tourist attractions (including the
Grand Arch at La Defense, Arc de Triomphe, Champs Elysees, Concorde, Louvre, and Bastille), is
the site of many thefts. Pickpockets are especially active on this metro line during the summer
months.
- Gare du Nord train station, where the express trains from the airport arrive in Paris, is also a
high-risk area for pickpocketing and theft.
- Many thefts occur at the major department stores (Galeries Lafeyette, Printemps, and
Samarataine) where tourists often leave wallets, passports, and credit cards on cashier counters
during transactions.
- In hotels, thieves frequent lobbies and breakfast rooms, and take advantage of a minute of
inattention to snatch jackets, purses and backpacks. Also, while many hotels do have safety latches
that allow guests to secure their rooms while they are inside, this feature is not as universal as it is
in the United States. If no chain or latch is present, a chair placed up against the door is usually an
effective obstacle to surreptitious entry during the night.
- In restaurants, many Americans have reported that women's purses placed on the floor under the
table at the feet of the diner are stolen during the meal.
- ATMs (Automatic Teller Machines) are very common in France and provide ready access to
cash, allowing travelers to carry as much money as they need for each day. The rates are
competitive with local exchange bureaus and an ATM transaction is easier than the cashing of
travelers' checks. However, crimes committed around ATMs have been reported. Travelers should
not use an ATM in isolated, unlit areas or when loiterers are in the vicinity. Travelers should be
France Review 2016
France
especially aware of persons standing close enough to see the PIN (Personal Identification Number)
being entered into the machine. Thieves often conduct successful scams by simply observing the
PIN as it is entered. If the card becomes stuck, travelers should be wary of persons offering to
help and even asking for the PIN to "fix" the machine. Legitimate bank employees never have a
reason to ask for the PIN.
- Pigalle is the red-light district of Paris. Many entertainment establishments in this area engage in
aggressive marketing and charge well beyond the normal rate for their drinks. There have been
reports of threats of violence to coerce patrons into paying exorbitant beverage tabs.
Note: This information is provided by the United States Department of State.
Source: United States Department of State Consular Information Sheets
Business Culture: Information for Business Travelers
The most important characteristic of French business behavior is its emphasis on courtesy and a
certain formality. Appointment schedules and hierarchical titles are to be respected and
correspondence--whether by mail or by fax--should be acknowledged promptly. A handshake is
customary upon initiating and closing a business meeting, accompanied by an appropriate greeting.
Professional attire is expected.
Today, many French executives put less emphasis on long, heavy business lunches for reasons of
health and time. Nevertheless, informal business discussions in restaurants where everyone
appreciates a good meal are one of the best ways to promote good working relations.
The working days abutting the French holidays and vacation periods are not "prime time" for
business meetings; this could include the month of August and the several vacation periods
between Christmas and Easter. Business hours in France are generally 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM
(banking hours 9:00-4:30) Monday through Friday while stores are generally open 10:00 AM to
7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. To ensure availability, advance appointments are
recommended.
Sources: United States Department of State Commercial Guides
For more information on etiquette in France see our Cultural Etiquette page.
Online Resources Regarding Entry Requirements and Visas
Foreign Entry Requirements for Americans from the United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1765.html
France Review 2016
France
Visa Services for Non-Americans from the United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/visa/visa_1750.html
Visa Bulletins from the United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html
Visa Waivers from the United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html - new
Passport and Visa Information from the Government of the United Kingdom
http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/
Visa Information from the Government of Australia
http://www.dfat.gov.au/visas/index.html
Passport Information from the Government of Australia
https://www.passports.gov.au/Web/index.aspx
Passport Information from the Government of Canada
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/preparation_information/passport_passeport-eng.asp
Visa Information from the Government of Canada
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/preparation_information/visas-eng.asp
Online Visa Processing by Immigration Experts by VisaPro
http://www.visapro.com
Sources: United States Department of State, United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
Government of Australia: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Government of Canada
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Useful Online Resources for Travelers
Country-Specific Travel Information from United States
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1765.html
Travel Advice by Country from Government of United Kingdom
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/travel-advice-by-country/
General Travel Advice from Government of Australia
France Review 2016
France
http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/General
Travel Bulletins from the Government of Australia
http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/TravelBulletins/
Travel Tips from Government of Australia
http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/tips/index.html
Travel Checklist by Government of Canada
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/preparation_information/checklist_sommaire-eng.asp
Travel Checklist from Government of United Kingdom
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/staying-safe/checklist
Your trip abroad from United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/brochures/brochures_1225.html
A safe trip abroad from United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/safety/safety_1747.html
Tips for expatriates abroad from United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/travel/living/residing/residing_1235.html
Tips for students from United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/travel/living/studying/studying_1238.html http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/brochures/broc
Medical information for travelers from United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/health/health_1185.html
US Customs Travel information
http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/travel/
Sources: United States Department of State; United States Customs Department, United Kingdom
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Government of Australia;
Government of Canada: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Other Practical Online Resources for Travelers
Foreign Language Phrases for Travelers
http://www.travlang.com/languages/
France Review 2016
France
http://www.omniglot.com/language/phrases/index.htm
World Weather Forecasts
http://www.intellicast.com/
http://www.wunderground.com/
http://www.worldweather.org/
Worldwide Time Zones, Map, World Clock
http://www.timeanddate.com/
http://www.worldtimezone.com/
International Airport Codes
http://www.world-airport-codes.com/
International Dialing Codes
http://www.kropla.com/dialcode.htm
http://www.countrycallingcodes.com/
International Phone Guide
http://www.kropla.com/phones.htm
International Mobile Phone Guide
http://www.kropla.com/mobilephones.htm
International Internet Café Search Engine
http://cybercaptive.com/
Global Internet Roaming
http://www.kropla.com/roaming.htm
World Electric Power Guide
http://www.kropla.com/electric.htm
http://www.kropla.com/electric2.htm
World Television Standards and Codes
http://www.kropla.com/tv.htm
International Currency Exchange Rates
http://www.xe.com/ucc/
Banking and Financial Institutions Across the World
http://www.123world.com/banks/index.html
France Review 2016
France
International Credit Card or Automated Teller Machine (ATM) Locator
http://visa.via.infonow.net/locator/global/
http://www.mastercard.com/us/personal/en/cardholderservices/atmlocations/index.html
International Chambers of Commerce
http://www.123world.com/chambers/index.html
World Tourism Websites
http://123world.com/tourism/
Diplomatic and Consular Information
United States Diplomatic Posts Around the World
http://www.usembassy.gov/
United Kingdom Diplomatic Posts Around the World
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/embassies-and-posts/find-an-embassy-overseas/
Australia's Diplomatic Posts Around the World
http://www.dfat.gov.au/missions/
http://www.dfat.gov.au/embassies.html
Canada's Embassies and High Commissions
http://www.international.gc.ca/ciw-cdm/embassies-ambassades.aspx
Resources for Finding Embassies and other Diplomatic Posts Across the World
http://www.escapeartist.com/embassy1/embassy1.htm
Safety and Security
Travel Warnings by Country from Government of Australia
http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/
Travel Warnings and Alerts from United States Department of State
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/pa/pa_1766.html
Travel Reports and Warnings by Government of Canada
France Review 2016
France
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/menu-eng.asp
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/updates_mise-a-jour-eng.asp
Travel Warnings from Government of United Kingdom
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/travel-advice-by-country/
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/travel-advice-by-country/?
action=noTravelAll#noTravelAll
Sources: United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the United States Department of
State, the Government of Canada: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
Government of Australia: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Other Safety and Security Online Resources for Travelers
United States Department of State Information on Terrorism
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/
Government of the United Kingdom Resource on the Risk of Terrorism
http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?
pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1044011304926
Government of Canada Terrorism Guide
http://www.international.gc.ca/crime/terrorism-terrorisme.aspx?lang=eng
Information on Terrorism by Government of Australia
http://www.dfat.gov.au/icat/index.html
FAA Resource on Aviation Safety
http://www.faasafety.gov/
In-Flight Safety Information for Air Travel (by British Airways crew trainer, Anna Warman)
http://www.warman.demon.co.uk/anna/inflight.html
Hot Spots: Travel Safety and Risk Information
http://www.airsecurity.com/hotspots/HotSpots.asp
Information on Human Rights
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/
Sources: The United States Department of State, the United States Customs Department, the
Government of Canada, the Government of United Kingdom, the Government of Australia, the
France Review 2016
France
Federal Aviation Authority, Anna Warman's In-flight Website, Hot Spots Travel and Risk
Information
Diseases/Health Data
Please Note: Most of the entry below constitutes a generalized health advisory, which a
traveler might find useful, regardless of a particular destination.
As a supplement, however, reader will also find below a list of countries flagged with current
health notices and alerts issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Please note that travel to the following countries, based on these 3 levels of warnings, is
ill-advised, or should be undertaken with the utmost precaution:
Level 3 (highest level of concern; avoid non-essential travel) -Guinea - Ebola
Liberia - Ebola
Nepal - Eathquake zone
Sierra Leone - Ebola
Level 2 (intermediate level of concern; use utmost caution during travel) -Cameroon - Polio
Somalia - Polio
Vanuatu - Tropical Cyclone zone
Throughout Middle East and Arabia Peninsula - MERS ((Middle East Respiratory
Syndrome)
Level 1 (standard level of concern; use practical caution during travel) France Review 2016
France
Australia - Ross River disease
Bosnia-Herzegovina - Measles
Brazil - Dengue Fever
Brazil - Malaria
Brazil - Zika
China - H7N9 Avian flu
Cuba - Cholera
Egypt - H5N1 Bird flu
Ethiopia - Measles
Germany - Measles
Japan - Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD)
Kyrgyzstan - Measles
Malaysia -Dengue Fever
Mexico - Chikungunya
Mexico - Hepatitis A
Nigeria - Meningitis
Philippines - Measles
Scotland - Mumps
Singapore - Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD)
South Korea - MERS ((Middle East Respiratory Syndrome)
Throughout Caribbean - Chikungunya
Throughout Central America - Chikungunya
Throughout South America - Chikungunya
Throughout Pacific Islands - Chikungunya
For specific information related to these health notices and alerts please see the CDC's
listing available at URL:
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/notices
Health Information for Travelers to France
The preventive measures you need to take while traveling in Western Europe depend on the areas
you visit and the length of time you stay. For most areas of this region, you should observe health
precautions similar to those that would apply while traveling in the United States.
Travelers' diarrhea, the number one illness in travelers, can be caused by viruses, bacteria, or
parasites, which can contaminate food or water. Infections may cause diarrhea and vomiting (E.
coli, Salmonella, cholera, and parasites), fever (typhoid fever and toxoplasmosis), or liver damage
(hepatitis). Make sure your food and drinking water are safe. (See below.)
France Review 2016
France
A certificate of yellow fever vaccination may be required for entry into certain of these countries if
you are coming from countries in tropical South America or sub-Saharan Africa. (There is no risk
for yellow fever in Western Europe.) For detailed information, see Comprehensive Yellow Fever
Vaccination Requirements (<http://www.cdc.gov/travel/yelfever.htm).>
Tickborne encephalitis, a viral infection of the central nervous system, occurs chiefly in Central
and Western Europe. Travelers are at risk who visit or work in forested areas during the summer
months and who consume unpasteurized dairy products. The vaccine for this disease is not
available in the United States at this time. To prevent tickborne encephalitis, as well as Lyme
disease, travelers should take precautions to prevent tick bites (see below).
CDC Recommends the Following Vaccines (as Appropriate for Age):
See your doctor at least 4-6 weeks before your trip to allow time for shots to take effect.
• Hepatitis A or immune globulin (IG). You are not at increased risk in Northern, Western, and
Southern Europe, including the Mediterranean regions of Italy and Greece.
• Hepatitis B, if you might be exposed to blood (for example, health-care workers), have sexual
contact with the local population, stay longer than 6 months in Southern Europe, or be exposed
through medical treatment.
• As needed, booster doses for tetanus-diphtheria. Hepatitis B vaccine is now recommended for all
infants and for children ages 11-12 years who did not complete the series as infants.
All travelers should take the following precautions, no matter the destination:
• Wash hands often with soap and water.
• Because motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of injury among travelers, walk and drive
defensively. Avoid travel at night if possible and always use seat belts.
• Always use latex condoms to reduce the risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
• Don't eat or drink dairy products unless you know they have been pasteurized.
• Don't share needles with anyone.
• Never eat undercooked ground beef and poultry, raw eggs, and unpasteurized dairy products.
Raw shellfish is particularly dangerous to persons who have liver disease or compromised immune
systems. (Travelers to Western Europe should also see the information on Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy ["Mad Cow Disease"] and New Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease [nvCJD] at
URL <http://www.cdc.gov/travel/madcow.htm.)>
Travelers to rural or undeveloped areas should take the following precautions:
To Stay Healthy, Do:
France Review 2016
France
• Drink only bottled or boiled water, or carbonated (bubbly) drinks in cans or bottles. Avoid tap
water, fountain drinks, and ice cubes. If this is not possible, make water safer by BOTH filtering
through an "absolute 1-micron or less" filter AND adding iodine tablets to the filtered water.
"Absolute 1-micron filters" are found in camping/outdoor supply stores.
• Eat only thoroughly cooked food or fruits and vegetables you have peeled yourself. Remember:
boil it, cook it, peel it, or forget it.
• Protect yourself from insects by remaining in well-screened areas, using repellents (applied
sparingly at 4-hour intervals), and wearing long-sleeved shirts and long pants tucked into boots or
socks as a deterrent to ticks.
• To prevent fungal and parasitic infections, keep feet clean and dry, and do not go barefoot.
To Avoid Getting Sick:
• Don't eat food purchased from street vendors. Do not drink beverages with ice.
• Don't handle animals (especially monkeys, dogs, and cats), to avoid bites and serious diseases
(including rabies and plague).
What You Need To Bring with You:
• Insect repellent containing DEET (diethylmethyltoluamide), in 30%-35% strength for adults and
6%-10% for children. The insecticide permethrin applied to clothing is an effective deterrent to
ticks.
• Over-the-counter antidiarrheal medicine to take if you have diarrhea.
• Iodine tablets and water filters to purify water if bottled water is not available. See Food and
Water Precautions and Travelers' Diarrhea Prevention (<http://www.cdc.gov/travel/foodwatr.htm>
) and Risks from Food and Drink (<http://www.cdc.gov/travel/food-drink-risks.htm> ) for more
detailed information about water filters.
• Sunblock, sunglasses, hat.
• Prescription medications: make sure you have enough to last during your trip, as well as a copy
of the prescription(s).
After You Return Home:
If you become ill after your trip-even as long as a year after you return-tell your doctor where you
have traveled.
For More Information:
Ask your doctor or check the CDC web sites for more information about how to protect yourself
against diseases that occur in Western Europe, such as:
France Review 2016
France
For information about diseasesCarried by Insects
Lyme disease
Carried in Food or Water
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("mad cow disease"), Escherichia coli, diarrhea, Hepatitis A,
Typhoid Fever
Person-to-Person Contact
Hepatitis B, HIV/AIDS
For more information about these and other diseases, please check the Diseases
(<http://www.cdc.gov/travel/diseases.htm)> s e c t i o n a n d t h e H e a l t h T o p i c s A - Z
(http://www.cdc.gov/health/diseases.htm).
Note:
France is located in the Western Europe health region.
Sources:
The Center for Disease Control Destinations Website:
<http://www.cdc.gov/travel/destinat.htm>
France Review 2016
France
Chapter 6
France Review 2016
France
Environmental Issues
General Overview:
The French government has been committed to reducing toxic emissions and strictly adhering to
regulations concerning the transportation of hazardous materials. It has also been a consistent
supporter of policies that protect wildlife, plant life, and other forms of bio-diversity.
Current Issues:
-some forest damage from acid rain
-air pollution from industrial and vehicle emissions
-water pollution from urban wastes
-agricultural runoff
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mtc):
139.7
Country Rank (GHG output):
14th
Natural Hazards:
-flooding
***
Special Report
France Review 2016
France
COP 21 summit in Paris ends with historic agreement to tackle climate change; rare
international consensus formed on environmental crisis facing the planet -In mid-December 2015, the highly-anticipated United Nations climate conference of parties (COP)
in Paris, France, ended with a historic agreement. In fact, it would very likely be understood as
the most significant international agreement signed by all the recognized countries of the world
since the Cold War. Accordingly, the Paris Agreement was being distinguished as the first
multilateral pact that would compel all countries across the world to cut its carbon emissions -- one
of the major causes of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming,
and its deleterious effects ranging from the dangerous rise in sea level to catastrophic climate
change.
The accord, which was dubbed to be the "Paris Agreement," was the work of rigorous diplomacy
and fervent environmental advocacy, and it aimed to address the climate change crisis facing the
planet. As many as 195 countries were represented in the negotiations that led to the landmark
climate deal. Indeed, it was only after weeks of passionate debate that international concurrence
was reached in addressing the environmental challenges confronting the world, with particular
attention to moving beyond fossil fuels and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The success of the COP 21 summit in Paris and the emergence of the landmark Paris Agreement
was, to some extent, attributed to the efforts of France's Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius who
presided over the negotiations. The French foreign minister's experience and credentials as a
seasoned diplomat and respected statesman paid dividends. He skillfully guided the delegates from
almost 200 countries and interest groups along the negotiations process, with ostensibly productive
results and a reasonably robust deal to show for it.
On Dec. 12, 2015, French Foreign Minister Fabius officially adopted the agreement, declaring: "I
now invite the COP to adopt the decision entitled Paris Agreement outlined in the document.
Looking out to the room I see that the reaction is positive, I see no objections. The Paris
agreement is adopted." Once Foreign Minister Fabius' gavel was struck, symbolically inaugurating
the Paris Agreement into force, the COP delegate rushed to their feet with loud and bouyant cheers
as well as thunderous applause.
In general, the Paris Agreement was being hailed as a victory for enviromental activists and a
triumph for international diplomats, while at the same time being understood as simply an initial -and imperfect -- move in the direction of a sustainable future. China's chief negotiator, Xie
Zhenhua, issued this message, saying that while the accord was not ideal, it should "not prevent
us from marching historical steps forward."
United States President Barack Obama lauded the deal as both "ambitious" and "historic," and the
France Review 2016
France
work of strenuous multilateral negotiations as he declared, "Together, we've shown what's possible
when the world stands as one." The United States leader acknowledged that the accord was not
"perfect," but he reminded the critics that it was "the best chance to save the one planet we have. "
Former United States Vice President Al Gore, one of the world's most well known environmental
advocates, issued a lengthy statement on the accompishments ensconced in the Paris Agreement.
He highlighted the fact that the Paris Agreement was a first step towards a future with a reduced
carbon footprint on Planet Earth as he said, "The components of this agreement -- including a
strong review mechanism to enhance existing commitments and a long-term goal to eliminate
global-warming pollution this century -- are essential to unlocking the necessary investments in our
future. No agreement is perfect, and this one must be strengthened over time, but groups across
every sector of society will now begin to reduce dangerous carbon pollution through the framework
of this agreement."
The central provisions of the Paris Agreement included the following items:
- Greenhouse gas emissions should peak as quickly as possible, with a move towards balancing
energy sources, and ultimately the decrease of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century
- Global temperature increase would be limited to 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial
levels and would be held "well below" the two degrees Centigrade threshold
- Progress on these goals would be reviewed every five years beginning in 2020 with new
greenhouse gas reduction targets issued every five years
- $100 billion would be expended each year in climate finance for developing countries to move
forward with green technologies, with further climate financing to be advanced in the years beyond
It should be noted that there both legally binding and voluntary elements contained within the
Paris Agreement. Specifically, the submission of an emissions reduction target and the regular
review of that goal would be legally mandatory for all countries. Stated differently, there would be
a system in place by which experts would be able to track the carbon-cutting progress of each
country. At the same time, the specific targets to be set by countries would be determined at the
discretion of the countries, and would not be binding. While there was some criticism over this
non-binding element, the fact of the matter was that the imposition of emissions targets was
believed to be a major factor in the failure of climate change talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, in
2009.
In 2015, the talks faced challenges as several countries, such as China and India, objected to
conditions that would stymie economic and development. In order to avoid that kind of landmine,
a system Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) was developed and formed the
basis of the accord. As such, the Paris Agreement would, in fact, facilitate economic growth and
development, as well as technological progress, but with the goal of long-term ecological
sustainability based on low carbon sources. In fact, the agreement heralded as "the beginning of
France Review 2016
France
the end of the fossil fuel era." As noted by Nick Mabey, the head of the climate diplomacy
organization E3G, said, "Paris means governments will go further and faster to tackle climate
change than ever before. The transition to a low carbon economy is now unstoppable, ensuring
the end of the fossil fuel age."
A particular sticking point in the agreement was the $100 billion earmarked for climate financing
for developing countries to transition from traditional fossil fuels to green energy technologies and a
low carbon future. In 2014, a report by the International Energy Agency indicated that the cost of
that transition would actually be around $44 trillion by the mid-century -- an amount that would
render the $100 billion being promised to be a drop in the proverbial bucket. However, the general
expectation was that the Republican-controlled Senate in the United States, which would have to
ratify the deal in that country, was not interested in contributing significant funds for the cause of
climate change.
A key strength of the Paris Agreement was the ubiquitous application of measures to all countries.
Of note was the frequently utilized concept of "flexibility" with regard to the Paris Agreement.
Specifically, the varying capacities of the various countries in meeting their obligations would be
anticipated and accorded flexibility. This aspect presented something of a departure from the 1997
Kyoto Protocol, which drew a sharp distinction between developed and developing countries, and
mandated a different set of obligations for those categories of countries. Thus, under Kyoto,
China and India were not held to the same standards as the United States and European
countries. In the Paris Agreement, there would be commitments from all countries across the
globe.
Another notable strength of the Paris Agreement was the fact that the countries of the world were
finally able to reach consensus on the vital necessity to limit global temperature increases to 1.5
degrees Centrigrade. Ahead of the global consensus on the deal, and as controversy continued to
surface over the targeted global temperature limits, the leaders of island countries were sounding
the alarm about the melting of the Polar ice caps and the associated rise in seal level. Prime
Minister Enele Sopoaga of Tuvalu issued this dismal reminder: “Tuvalu’s future … is already
bleak and any further temperature increase will spell the total demise of Tuvalu. No leader in this
room carries such a level of worry and responsibility. Just imagine you are in my shoes, what
would you do?” It was thus something of a victory for environmental advocates that the countries
of the world could find cnsensus on the lower number -- 1.5 degrees rather than 2 degrees.
A significant weak point with regard to the Paris deal was a "loss and damage" provision, which
anticipates that even with all the new undertakings intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and move to a low carbon future, there would nonetheless be unavoidable climate change
consequences. Those consequences ranged from the loss of arable land for farmers as well as soil
erosion and contamination of potable water by sea water, to the decimation of territory in coastal
zones and on small islands, due to the rise in sea level, with entire small island countries being
France Review 2016
France
rendered entirely uninhabitable. The reality was that peoples' homes across the world would be
destroyed along with their way of life.
With that latter catastrophic effect being a clear and present danger for small island countries, the
Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) demanded that the developed world acknowledge its
responsibility for this irreversible damage.. Despite the fact that greenhouse gas emissions and the
ensuing plague of global warming was, indeed, the consequence of development in the West (the
United States and Europe) and the large power house countries, such as Russia, China and India,
there was no appetite by those countries to sign on to unlimited liability. Under the Paris
Agreement, there was a call for research on insurance mechanisms that would address loss and
damage issues, with recommendations to come in the future.
The call for research was being regarded as an evasion of sorts and constituted the weakest aspect
of the Paris Agreement. Not surprisingly, a coalition of small island nations demanded a "Marshall
Plan" for the Pacific. Borrowing the term "Marshall Plan" from the post-World War II
reconstruction effort, the coalition of Pacific island nation, which included Kiribati, Tuvalu, Fiji,
and the Marshall Islands, called for an initiative that would include investment in renewable energy
and shoreline protection, cultural preservation, economic assistance for economies in transition,
and a plan for migration and resettlement for these countries as they confront the catastrophic
effects of the melting of the Polar ice caps and the concomitant rise in sea level. The precise
contours of the initiative remained unknown, unspecified, and a mere exercise in theory at the time
of writing. Yet such an initiative would, at some point, have to be addressed, given the realities of
climate change and the slow motion calamity unfolding each day for low-lying island nations across
the world.
As noted by Vice President Greg Stone of Conservation International, who also functions as an
adviser to the government of Kiribati, “Imagine living in a place where you know it’s going to go
away someday, but you don’t know what day that wave’s going to come over and wash your
home away." He added, “It’s a disaster we know is going to happen.” Meanwhile, the
intervening years promised to be filled with hardship for small island nations, such as Kiribati.
Stone explained, “For every inch of sea-level rise, these islands lose 10 feet of their freshwater
table to saltwater intrusion,” Stone explained. “So it’s not just about the day the water finally goes
over the island; it’s also about the day that there’s just not enough water left and everyone has to
move off the island.” Presaging the future for island nations that could face submersion, Stone
said, “If you look ahead 50 years, a country like Kiribati could become the first aqueous nation.
possibility of migration. That is, they own this big patch of ocean, and they administer it from
elsewhere.”
Foreign Minister Minister Tony Debrum of the Marshall Islands emerged as the champion
advocating on behalf of small island nation states and a loose coalition of concerned countries from
the Pacific to the Caribbean, but with support from the United States. He addressed the
France Review 2016
France
comprehensive concerns of small island nations regarding the weaknesses of the deal, while
simultaneously making clear that the Paris Agreement signified hope for the countries most at risk.
In a formal statement, Debrum declared: "We have made history today. Emissions targets are still
way off track, but this agreement has the tools to ramp up ambition, and brings a spirit of hope that
we can rise to this challenge. I can go back home to my people and say we now have a pathway to
survival.” Debrum highlighted the imperatives of Pacific island nations, saying, “Our High
Ambition Coalition was the lightning rod we needed to lift our sights and expectations for a strong
agreement here in Paris. We were joined by countries representing more than half the world. We
said loud and clear that a bare-bones, minimalist agreement would not fly. We instead demanded an
agreement to mark a turning point in history, and the beginning of our journey to the post-carbon
era.”
Debrum of the Marshall Islands espoused the quintessential synopsis of the accord and its effects
for those most likely to be affected by climate change as he noted, “Climate change won’t stop
overnight, and my country is not out of the firing line just yet, but today we all feel a little safer.”
Written by Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief at CountryWatch
Environmental Policy
Regulation and Jurisdiction:
The regulation and protection of the environment in France is under the jurisdiction of the
following:
Ministry of Regional Development and Environment
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
National Center for Scientific Research, Environment Program
Major Non-Governmental Organizations:
"Association pour la Sauvegarde de la Nature Néo-Calédonienne" (Association to Safeguard
New Caledonian Nature)
"Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques" (World Underwater Federation)
"Conservatoire Botanique National de Brest" (National Botany Conservatory)
"Fondation Internationale pour la Sauvegarde du Givier" (International Foundation for the
France Review 2016
France
Conservation of Game)
"Fonds Français pour la Nature et l'Environnement" (French Fund for Nature and
Environment)
Friends of Animals
"Institut Méditerranéen de la Communicaton" (Mediterranean Institute of Communication)
Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment/International Council of Scientific
Unions
International Geographical Union 's Commission on the Coastal Environment
"Mouvement National de Lutte pour l'Environnement" (National Movement Fighting for the
Environment)
International Environmental Accords:
Party to:
Air Pollution
Air Pollution-Nitrogen Oxides
Air Pollution-Persistent Organic Pollutants
Air Pollution-Sulfur 85
Air Pollution-Sulfur 94
Air Pollution-Volatile Organic Compounds
Antarctic-Environmental Protocol
Antarctic-Marine Living Resources
Antarctic Seals
Antarctic Treaty
Biodiversity
Climate Change
Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol
Desertification
Endangered Species
Hazardous Wastes
Law of the Sea
Marine Dumping
Marine Life Conservation
Ozone Layer Protection
Ship Pollution
Tropical Timber 83
Tropical Timber 94
Wetlands
Whaling
France Review 2016
France
Signed but not ratified:
None
Kyoto Protocol Status (year ratified):
2002
GHG Emissions Rankings
Country
Rank
Country
1
United States
2
China
4
Russia
5
Japan
France Review 2016
France
6
India
7
Germany
8
United Kingdom
9
Canada
10
Korea, South
11
Italy
12
Mexico
13
France
14
South Africa
15
Iran
16
Indonesia
17
Australia
18
Spain
19
Brazil
20
Saudi Arabia
21
Ukraine
22
Poland
23
Taiwan
France Review 2016
France
24
Turkey
25
Thailand
26
Netherlands
27
Kazakhstan
28
Malaysia
29
Egypt
30
Venezuela
31
Argentina
32
Uzbekistan
33
Czech Republic
34
Belgium
35
Pakistan
36
Romania
37
Greece
38
39
Algeria
40
Nigeria
41
Austria
France Review 2016
France
42
Iraq
43
Finland
44
Philippines
45
Vietnam
46
Korea, North
47
Israel
48
Portugal
49
Colombia
50
Belarus
51
Kuwait
52
Hungary
53
Chile
54
Denmark
55
Serbia & Montenegro
56
Sweden
57
Syria
58
Libya
59
Bulgaria
France Review 2016
France
60
Singapore
61
Switzerland
62
Ireland
63
Turkmenistan
64
Slovakia
65
Bangladesh
66
Morocco
67
New Zealand
68
Oman
69
Qatar
70
Azerbaijan
71
Norway
72
Peru
73
Cuba
74
Ecuador
75
Trinidad & Tobago
76
Croatia
77
Tunisia
France Review 2016
France
78
Dominican Republic
79
Lebanon
80
Estonia
81
Yemen
82
Jordan
83
Slovenia
84
Bahrain
85
Angola
86
Bosnia & Herzegovina
87
Lithuania
88
Sri Lanka
89
Zimbabwe
90
Bolivia
91
Jamaica
92
Guatemala
93
Luxembourg
94
Myanmar
95
Sudan
France Review 2016
France
96
Kenya
97
Macedonia
98
Mongolia
99
Ghana
100
Cyprus
101
Moldova
102
Latvia
103
El Salvador
104
Brunei
105
Honduras
106
Cameroon
107
Panama
108
Costa Rica
109
Cote d'Ivoire
110
Kyrgyzstan
111
Tajikistan
112
Ethiopia
113
Senegal
France Review 2016
France
114
Uruguay
115
Gabon
116
Albania
117
Nicaragua
118
Botswana
119
Paraguay
120
Tanzania
121
Georgia
122
Armenia
123
Congo, RC
124
Mauritius
125
Nepal
126
Mauritius
127
Nepal
128
Mauritania
129
Malta
130
Papua New Guinea
131
Zambia
France Review 2016
France
132
Suriname
133
Iceland
134
Togo
135
Benin
136
Uganda
137
Bahamas
138
Haiti
139
Congo, DRC
140
Guyana
141
Mozambique
142
Guinea
143
Equatorial Guinea
144
Laos
145
Barbados
146
Niger
147
Fiji
148
Burkina Faso
149
Malawi
France Review 2016
France
150
Swaziland
151
Belize
152
Afghanistan
153
Sierra Leone
154
Eritrea
155
Rwanda
156
Mali
157
Seychelles
158
Cambodia
159
Liberia
160
Bhutan
161
Maldives
162
Antigua & Barbuda
163
Djibouti
164
Saint Lucia
165
Gambia
166
Guinea-Bissau
167
France Review 2016
France
168
Palau
169
Burundi
170
Grenada
171
Lesotho
172
Saint Vincent & the Grenadines
173
Solomon Islands
174
Samoa
175
Cape Verde
176
Nauru
177
Dominica
178
Saint Kitts & Nevis
179
Chad
180
Tonga
181
Sao Tome & Principe
182
Comoros
183
Vanuatu
185
Kiribati
Not Ranked
Andorra
France Review 2016
France
Not Ranked
East Timor
Not Ranked
Holy See
Not Ranked
Hong Kong
Not Ranked
Liechtenstein
Not Ranked
Marshall Islands
Not Ranked
Micronesia
Not Ranked
Monaco
Not Ranked
San Marino
Not Ranked
Somalia
Not Ranked
Tuvalu
* European Union is ranked 3rd
Cook Islands are ranked 184th
Niue is ranked 186th
Global Environmental Snapshot
Introduction
The countries of the world face many environmental challenges in common. Nevertheless, the
nature and intensity of problem vary from region to region, as do various countries' respective
capacities, in terms of affluence and infrastructure, to remediate threats to environmental quality.
Consciousness of perils affecting the global environment came to the fore in the last third or so of
the 20th century has continued to intensify well into the new millennium. According to the United
France Review 2016
France
Nations Environment Programme, considerable environmental progress has been made at the level
of institutional developments, international cooperation accords, and public participation.
Approximately two-dozen international environmental protection accords with global implications
have been promulgated since the late 1970s under auspices of the United Nations and other
international organizations, together with many additional regional agreements. Attempts to address
and rectify environmental problems take the form of legal frameworks, economic instruments,
environmentally sound technologies and cleaner production processes as well as conservation
efforts. Environmental impact assessments have increasingly been applied across the globe.
Environmental degradation affects the quality, or aesthetics, of human life, but it also displays
potential to undermine conditions necessary for the sustainability of human life. Attitudes toward
the importance of environmental protection measures reflect ambivalence derived from this
bifurcation. On one hand, steps such as cleaning up pollution, dedicating parkland, and suchlike,
are seen as embellishments undertaken by wealthy societies already assured they can successfully
perform those functions deemed, ostensibly, more essential-for instance, public health and
education, employment and economic development. On the other hand, in poorer countries,
activities causing environmental damage-for instance the land degradation effects of unregulated
logging, slash-and-burn agriculture, overgrazing, and mining-can seem justified insofar as such
activities provide incomes and livelihoods.
Rapid rates of resource depletion are associated with poverty and high population growth,
themselves correlated, whereas consumption per capita is much higher in the most developed
countries, despite these nations' recent progress in energy efficiency and conservation. It is
impossible to sequester the global environmental challenge from related economic, social and
political challenges.
First-tier industrialized countries have recently achieved measurable decreases in environmental
pollution and the rate of resource depletion, a success not matched in middle income and
developing countries. It is believed that the discrepancy is due to the fact that industrialized
countries have more developed infrastructures to accommodate changes in environmental policy, to
apply environmental technologies, and to invest in public education. The advanced industrialized
countries incur relatively lower costs in alleviating environmental problems, in comparison to
developing countries, since in the former even extensive environmental programs represent a rather
minuscule percentage of total expenditures. Conversely, budget constraints, lagged provision of
basic services to the population, and other factors such as debt service and militarization may
preclude institution of minimal environmental protection measures in the poorest countries.
A synopsis for the current situation facing each region of the world follows:
Regional Synopsis: Africa
France Review 2016
France
The African continent, the world's second-largest landmass, encompasses many of the world's
least developed countries. By global standards, urbanization is comparatively low but rising at a
rapid rate. More heavily industrialized areas at the northern and southern ends of the continent
experience the major share of industrial pollution. In other regions the most serious environmental
problems typically stem from inefficient subsistence farming methods and other forms of land
degradation, which have affected an increasingly extensive area under pressure of a widely
impoverished, fast-growing population. Africa's distribution of natural resources is very uneven. It
is the continent at greatest risk of desertification, especially in the Sahel region at the edge of the
Sahara but also in other dry-range areas. Yet at the same time, Africa also harbors some of the
earth's richest and most diverse biological zones.
Key Points:
Up to half a billion hectares of African land are moderately to severely degraded, an occurrence
reflecting short-fallow shifting cultivation and overgrazing as well as a climatic pattern of recurrent
droughts.
Soil degradation is severe along the expanse directly south of the Sahara, from the west to the east
coasts. Parts of southern Africa, central-eastern Africa, and the neighboring island of Madagascar
suffer from serious soil degradation as well.
Africa contains about 17 percent of the world's forest cover, concentrated in the tropical belt of the
continent. Many of the forests, however, are severely depleted, with an estimated 70 percent
showing some degree of degradation.
Population growth has resulted in continuing loss of arable land, as inefficient subsistence farming
techniques affect increasingly extensive areas. Efforts to implement settled, sustainable agriculture
have met with some recent success, but much further progress in this direction is needed.
Especially in previously uninhabited forestlands, concern over deforestation is intensifying.
By contrast, the African savanna remains the richest grassland in the world, supporting a
substantial concentration of animal and plant life. Wildlife parks are sub-Saharan Africa's greatest
tourist attraction, and with proper management-giving local people a stake in conservation and
controlling the pace of development-could greatly enhance African economies.
Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of northern, southern and eastern Africa are
currently threatened, while the biological diversity in Mauritania and Madagascar is even further
compromised with over 20 percent of the mammal species in these two countries currently under
threat.
France Review 2016
France
With marine catch trends increasing from 500,000 metric tons in the 1950s to over 3,000,000
metric tons by 2000, there was increasing concern about the reduction in fisheries and marine life,
should this trend continue unabated.
Water resource vulnerability is a major concern in northeastern Africa, and a moderate concern
across the rest of the continent. An exception is central Africa, which has plentiful water supplies.
Many Africans lack adequate access to resources, not just (if at all) because the resources are
unevenly distributed geographically, but also through institutional failures such as faulty land tenure
systems or political upheaval. The quality of Africa's natural resources, despite their spotty
distribution, is in fact extraordinarily rich. The infrastructure needed to protect and benefit from
this natural legacy, however, is largely lacking.
Regional Synopsis: Asia and the Pacific
Asia-earth's largest landmass-and the many large and nearly innumerable small islands lying off its
Pacific shore display extraordinarily contrasting landscapes, levels of development, and degrees of
environmental stress. In the classification used here, the world's smallest continent, Australia, is
also included in the Asia-Pacific region.
The Asia-Pacific region is home to 9 of the world's 14 largest urban areas, and as energy use for
utilities, industry and transport increases in developing economies, urban centers are subject to
worsening air quality. Intense population density in places such as Bangladesh or Hong Kong is the
quintessential image many people have of Asia, yet vast desert areas such as the Gobi and the
world's highest mountain range, the Himalayas, span the continent as well. Forested areas in
Southeast Asia and the islands of Indonesia and the Philippines were historically prized for their
tropical hardwood, but in many places this resource is now severely depleted. Low-lying small
island states are extremely vulnerable to the effects of global warming, both rising sea levels and an
anticipated increase in cyclones.
Key Points:
Asian timber reserves are forecast to be depleted in the next 40 years. Loss of natural forest is
irreversible in some areas, but plantation programs to restore tree cover may ameliorate a portion
of the resulting land degradation.
Increased usage of fossil fuels in China and other parts of southern Asia is projected to result in a
marked increase in emissions, especially in regard to carbon dioxide. The increased usage of energy
has led to a marked upsurge in air pollution across the region.
France Review 2016
France
Acidification is an emerging problem regionally, with sulfur dioxide emissions expected to triple by
2010 if the current growth rate is sustained. China, Thailand, India, and Korea seem to be
suffering from particularly high rates of acid deposition. By contrast, Asia's most highly developed
economy, Japan, has effected substantial improvements in its environmental indicators.
Water pollution in the Pacific is an urgent concern since up to 70 percent of the water discharged
into the region's waters receives no treatment. Additionally, the disposal of solid wastes, in like
manner, poses a major threat in a region with many areas of high population density.
The Asia-Pacific region is the largest expanse of the world's land that is adversely affected by soil
degradation.
The region around Australia reportedly suffers the largest degree of ozone depletion.
The microstates of the Pacific suffer land loss due to global warming, and the consequent rise in
the levels of ocean waters. A high-emissions scenario and anthropogenic climate impact at the
upper end of the currently predicted range would probably force complete evacuation of the
lowest-elevation islands sometime in this century.
The species-rich reefs surrounding Southeast Asia are highly vulnerable to the deleterious effects of
coastal development, land-based pollution, over-fishing and exploitative fishing methods, as well as
marine pollution from oil spills and other activities.
With marine catch trends increasing from 5,000,000 metric tons in the 1950s to over 20,000,000
Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of China and south-east Asia are currently
threatened, while the biological diversity in India, Japan, Australia, the Philippines, Indonesia and
parts of Malaysia is even further compromised with over 20 percent of the mammal species in
these countries currently under threat.
Water resource vulnerability is a serious concern in areas surrounding the Indian subcontinent.
Regional Synopsis: Central Asia
The Central Asian republics, formerly in the Soviet Union, experience a range of environmental
problems as the result of poorly executed agricultural, industrial, and nuclear programs during the
Soviet era. Relatively low population densities are the norm, especially since upon the breakup of
the U.S.S.R. many ethnic Russians migrated back to European Russia. In this largely semi-arid
France Review 2016
France
region, drought, water shortages, and soil salinization pose major challenges.
Key Points:
The use of agricultural pesticides, such as DDT and other chemicals, has contributed to the
contamination of soil and groundwater throughout the region.
Land and soil degradation, and in particular, increased salinization, is mostly attributable to faulty
irrigation practices.
Significant desertification is also a problem in the region.
Air pollution is prevalent, mostly due to use of low octane automobile fuel.
Industrial pollution of the Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea, as a result of industrial effluents as well as
mining and metal production, presents a challenge to the countries bordering these bodies of water.
One of the most severe environmental problems in the region is attributable to the several billion
tons of hazardous materials stored in landfills across Central Asia.
Uzbekistan's particular problem involves the contraction of the Aral Sea, which has decreased in
size by a third, as a consequence of river diversions and poor irrigation practices. The effect has
been the near-total biological destruction of that body of water.
Kazakhstan, as a consequence of being the heartland of the former Soviet Union's nuclear
program, has incurred a high of cancerous malignancies, biogenetic abnormalities and radioactive
contamination.
While part of the Soviet Union, the republics in the region experienced very high levels of
greenhouse gas emissions, as a consequence of rapid industrialization using cheap but dirty energy
sources, especially coal.
By contrast, however, there have recently been substantial reductions in the level of greenhouse
gas emissions, especially those attributable to coal burning, with further decreases anticipated over
the next decade. These changes are partially due to the use of cleaner energy technologies, such as
natural gas, augmented by governmental commitment to improving environmental standards.
Regional Synopsis: Europe
Western Europe underwent dramatic transformation of its landscape, virtually eliminating largeFrance Review 2016
France
scale natural areas, during an era of rapid industrialization, which intensified upon its recovery from
World War II. In Eastern Europe and European Russia, intensive land development has been less
prevalent, so that some native forests and other natural areas remain. Air and water pollution from
use of dirty fuels and industrial effluents, however, are more serious environmental problems in
Eastern than in Western Europe, though recent trends show improvement in many indicators. Acid
rain has inflicted heavy environmental damage across much of Europe, particularly on forests.
Europe and North America are the only regions in which water usage for industry exceeds that for
agriculture, although in Mediterranean nations agriculture is the largest water consumer.
Key Points:
Europe contributes 36 percent of the world's chlorofluorocarbon emissions, 30 percent of carbon
dioxide emissions, and 25 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions.
Sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions are the cause of 30 to 50 percent of Central and Eastern
Europe's deforestation.
Acid rain has been an environmental concern for decades and continues to be a challenge in parts
of Western Europe.
Overexploitation of up to 60 percent of Europe's groundwater presents a problem in industrial and
urban areas.
With marine catch trends increasing from 5,000,000 metric tons in the 1950s to over 20,000,000
Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of western Europe, Eastern Europe and Russia are
currently threatened, while the biological diversity on the Iberian Peninsula is even further
compromised with over 40 percent of the mammal species in this region currently under threat. As
a result, there has been a 10 percent increase in protected areas of Europe.
A major environmental issue for Europe involves the depletion of various already endangered or
threatened species, and most significantly, the decline of fish stocks. Some estimates suggest that
up to 50 percent of the continent's fish species may be considered endangered species. Coastal
fisheries have been over-harvested, resulting in catch limits or moratoriums on many commercially
important fish species.
Fortunately, in the last few years, these policies have started to yield measurable results with
decreasing trends in marine fish catch.
France Review 2016
France
Recently, most European countries have adopted cleaner production technologies, and alternative
methods of waste disposal, including recycling.
The countries of Eastern Europe have made air quality a major environmental priority. This is
exemplified by the Russian Federation's addition to the 1995 "Berlin Mandate" (transnational
legislation based on resolutions of the Rio Earth Summit) compelling nations to promote "carbon
sinks" to absorb greenhouse gases.
On a relative basis, when compared with the degree of industrial emissions emitted by many
Eastern European countries until the late 1980s, there has been some marked increase in air quality
in the region, as obsolete plants are closed and a transition to cleaner fuels and more efficient
energy use takes place.
Regional Synopsis: The Middle and Near East
Quite possibly, the Middle East will exemplify the adage that, as the 20th century was a century
fixated on oil, the 21st century will be devoted to critical decisions about water. Many (though far
from all) nations in the Middle East rank among those countries with the largest oil and gas
reserves, but water resources are relatively scarce throughout this predominantly dry region.
Effects of global warming may cause moderately high elevation areas that now typically receive
winter "snowpack" to experience mainly rain instead, which would further constrain dry-season
water availability. The antiquities and religious shrines of the region render it a great magnet for
tourism, which entails considerable economic growth potential but also intensifies stresses on the
environment.
Key Points:
Water resource vulnerability is a serious concern across the entire region. The increased usage of,
and further demand for water, has exacerbated long-standing water scarcity in the region. For
instance, river diversions and industrial salt works have caused the Dead Sea to shrink by one-third
from its original surface area, with further declines expected.
The oil industry in the region contributes to water pollution in the Persian Gulf, as a result of oil
spills, which have averaged 1.2 million barrels of oil spilt per year (some sources suggest that this
figure is understated). The consequences are severe because even after oil spills have been cleaned
up, environmental damage to the food webs and ecosystems of marine life will persist for a
prolonged period.
The region's coastal zone is considered one of the most fragile and endangered ecosystems of the
France Review 2016
France
world. Land reclamation, shoreline construction, discharge of industrial effluents, and tourism
(such as diving in the Red Sea) contribute to widespread coastal damage.
Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of the Middle East are currently threatened.
Since the 1980s, 11 percent of the region's natural forest has been depleted.
Regional Synopsis: Latin America and the Caribbean
The Latin American and Caribbean region is characterized by exceedingly diverse landforms that
have generally seen high rates of population growth and economic development in recent decades.
The percentage of inhabitants residing in urban areas is quite high at 73.4 percent; the region
includes the megacities of Mexico City, Sao Paulo, and Rio de Janeiro. The region also includes the
world's second-highest mountain range, the Andes; significant expanses of desert and grassland; the
coral reefs of the Caribbean Sea; and the world's largest contiguous tropical forest in the Amazon
basin. Threats to the latter from subsistence and commercial farming, mineral exploitation and
timbering are well publicized. Nevertheless, of eight countries worldwide that still retain at least 70
percent of their original forest cover, six are in Latin America. The region accounts for nearly half
(48.3 percent) of the world's greenhouse gas emissions derived from land clearing, but as yet a
comparatively minuscule share (4.3 percent) of such gases from industrial sources.
Key Points:
Although Latin America is one of the most biologically diverse regions of the world, this
biodiversity is highly threatened, as exemplified by the projected extinction of up to 100,000
species in the next few decades. Much of this loss will be concentrated in the Amazon area,
although the western coastline of South America will also suffer significant depletion of biological
diversity. The inventory of rainforest species with potentially useful commercial or medical
applications is incomplete, but presumed to include significant numbers of such species that may
become extinct before they are discovered and identified.
Up to 50 percent of the region's grazing land has lost its soil fertility as a result of soil erosion,
salinization, alkalinization and overgrazing.
The Caribbean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean have all been contaminated by
agricultural wastes, which are discharged into streams that flow into these major waters. Water
pollution derived from phosphorous, nitrates and pesticides adversely affects fish stocks,
contributes to oxygen depletion and fosters overgrowth of aquatic vegetation. Marine life will
continue to be severely compromised as a result of these conditions.
France Review 2016
France
Due to industrial development in the region, many beaches of eastern Latin America and the
Caribbean suffer from tar deposits.
Most cities in the region lack adequate sewage treatment facilities, and rapid migration of the rural
poor into the cities is widening the gap between current infrastructure capacity and the much
greater level needed to provide satisfactory basic services.
The rainforest region of the Amazon Basin suffers from dangerously high levels of deforestation,
which may be a significant contributory factor to global warming or "the greenhouse effect." In the
late 1990s and into the new millennium, the rate of deforestation was around 20 million acres of
rainforest being destroyed annually.
Deforestation on the steep rainforest slopes of Caribbean islands contributes to soil erosion and
landslides, both of which then result in heavy sedimentation of nearby river systems. When these
sedimented rivers drain into the sea and coral reefs, they poison the coral tissues, which are vital to
the maintenance of the reef ecosystem. The result is marine degradation and nutrient depletion.
Jamaica's coral reefs have never quite recovered from the effects of marine degradation.
The Southern Cone of Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay) suffers the
effects of greatly increased ultraviolet-B radiation, as a consequence of more intense ozone
depletion in the southern hemisphere.
Water resource vulnerability is an increasingly major concern in the northwestern portion of South
America.
Regional Synopsis: North America
North American nations, in particular the United States and Canada, rank among the world's most
highly developed industrial economies-a fact which has generated significant pollution problems,
but also financial resources and skills that have enabled many problems to be corrected. Although
efforts to promote energy efficiency, recycling, and suchlike have helped ease strains on the
environment in a part of the world where per capita consumption levels are high, sprawling land
development patterns and recent preferences many households have demonstrated for larger
vehicles have offset these advances.
Meanwhile, a large portion of North America's original forest cover has been lost, though in many
cases replaced by productive second-growth woodland. In recent years, attitudes toward best use
of the region's remaining natural or scenic areas seem to be shifting toward recreation and
preservation and away from resource extraction. With increasing attention on the energy scarcity in
the United States, however, there is speculation that this shift may be short-lived. Indeed, the
France Review 2016
France
energy shortage on the west coast of the United States and associated calls for energy exploration,
indicate a possible retrenchment toward resource extraction. At the same time, however, it has also
served to highlight the need for energy conservation as well as alternative energy sources.
Despite generally successful anti-pollution efforts, various parts of the region continue to suffer
significant air, water and land degradation from industrial, vehicular, and agricultural emissions and
runoff. Mexico, as a middle-income country, displays environmental problems characteristic of a
developing economy, including forest depletion, pollution from inefficient industrial processes and
dirty fuels, and lack of sufficient waste-treatment infrastructure.
Key Points:
Because of significantly greater motor vehicle usage in the United States (U.S.) than in the rest of
the world, the U.S. contribution of urban air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, especially
carbon dioxide, is disproportionately high in relation to its population.
Acid rain is an enduring issue of contention in the northeastern part of the United States, on the
border with Canada.
Mexico's urban areas suffer extreme air pollution from carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, and other toxic air pollutants. Emissions controls on vehicles are in their infancy, compared
to analogous regulations in the U.S.
The cities of Mexico, including those on the U.S. border, also discharge large quantities of
untreated or poorly treated sewage, though officials are currently planning infrastructure upgrades.
Deforestation is noteworthy in various regions of the U.S., especially along the northwest coastline.
Old growth forests have been largely removed, but in the northeastern and upper midwestern
sections of the United States, evidence suggests that the current extent of tree cover probably
surpasses the figure for the beginning of the 20th century.
Extreme weather conditions in the last few years have resulted in a high level of soil erosion along
the north coast of California; in addition, the coastline itself has shifted substantially due to soil
erosion and concomitant landslides.
Agricultural pollution-including nitrate contamination of well water, nutrient runoff to waterways,
and pesticide exposure-is significant in various areas. Noteworthy among affected places are
California's Central Valley, extensive stretches of the Midwest, and land in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
France Review 2016
France
Inland waterways, especially around the Great Lakes, have substantially improved their water
quality, due to concentrated efforts at reducing water pollution by governmental, commercial and
community representatives. Strict curbs on industrial effluents and near-universal implementation
of sewage treatment are the chief factors responsible for this improvement.
A major environmental issue for Canada and the United States involves the depletion of various
already endangered or threatened species, and most significantly, the decline of fish stocks. Coastal
fisheries have been over-harvested, resulting in catch limits or moratoriums on many commercially
important fish species. In the last few years, these policies have started to yield measurable results
with decreasing trends in marine fish catch.
Due to the decay of neighboring ecosystems in Central America and the Caribbean, the sea
surrounding Florida has become increasingly sedimented, contributing to marine degradation,
nutrient depletion of the ecosystem, depletion of fish stocks, and diseases to coral species in
particular.
Polar Regions
Key Points:
The significant rise in sea level, amounting 10 to 25 centimeters in the last 100 years, is due to the
melting of the Arctic ice sheets, and is attributed to global warming.
The Antarctic suffers from a significant ozone hole, first detected in 1976. By 1985, a British
scientific team reported a 40 percent decrease in usual regeneration rates of the ozone. Because a
sustained increase in the amount of ultraviolet-B radiation would have adverse consequences upon
all planetary life, recent environmental measures have been put into effect, aimed at reversing
ozone depletion. These measures are projected to garner significant results by 2050.
Due to air and ocean currents, the Arctic is a sink for toxic releases originally discharged thousands
of miles away. Arctic wildlife and Canada's Inuit population have higher bodily levels of
contaminants such as PCB and dioxin than those found in people and animals in much of the rest
of the world.
Global Environmental Concepts
France Review 2016
France
1. Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases
The Greenhouse Effect:
In the early 19th century, the French physicist, Jean Fourier, contended that the earth's atmosphere
functions in much the same way as the glass of a greenhouse, thus describing what is now
understood as the "greenhouse effect." Put simply, the "greenhouse effect" confines some of the
sun's energy to the earth, preserving some of the planet's warmth, rather than allowing it to flow
back into space. In so doing, all kinds of life forms can flourish on earth. Thus, the "greenhouse
effect" is necessary to sustain and preserve life forms and ecosystems on earth.
In the late 19th century, a Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, noticed that human activities, such
as the burning of coal and other fossil fuels for heat, and the removal of forested lands for urban
development, led to higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, in
the atmosphere. This increase in the levels of greenhouse gases was believed to advance the
"greenhouse effect" exponentially, and might be related to the trend in global warming.
In the wake of the Industrial Revolution, after industrial development took place on a large scale
and the total human population burgeoned simultaneously with industrialization, the resulting
increase in greenhouse gas emissions could, many scientists believe, be significant enough to have
some bearing on climate. Indeed, many studies in recent years support the idea that there is a
linkage between human activities and global warming, although there is less consensus on the
extent to which this linkage may be relevant to environmental concerns.
That said, some scientists have argued that temperature fluctuations have existed throughout the
evolution of the planet. Indeed, Dr. S. Fred Singer, the president of the Science and Environment
Policy Project has noted that 3,000-year-old geological records of ocean sediment reveal changes
in the surface temperature of the ocean. Hence, it is possible that climate variability is merely a
normal fact of the planet's evolution. Yet even skeptics as to anthropogenic factors concur that any
substantial changes in global temperatures would likely have an effect upon the earth's ecosystems,
as well as the life forms that inhabit them.
The Relationship Between Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases:
A large number of climatologists believe that the increase in atmospheric concentrations of
"greenhouse gas emissions," mostly a consequence of human activities such as the burning of fossil
fuels, are contributing to global warming. The cause notwithstanding, the planet has reportedly
warmed 0.3°C to 0.6°C over the last century. Indeed, each year during the 1990s was one of the
very warmest in the 20th century, with the mean surface temperature for 1999 being the fifth
France Review 2016
France
warmest on record since 1880.
In early 2000, a panel of atmospheric scientists for the National Research Council concluded in a
report that global warming was, indeed, a reality. While the panel, headed by Chairman John
Wallace, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, stated that it
remained unclear whether human activities have contributed to the earth's increasing temperatures,
it was apparent that global warming exists.
In 2001, following a request for further study by the incoming Bush administration in the United
States, the National Academy of Sciences again confirmed that global warming had been in
existence for the last 20 years. The study also projected an increase in temperature between 2.5
degrees and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. Furthermore, the study found the leading
cause of global warming to be emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, and it
noted that greenhouse gas accumulations in the earth's atmosphere was a result of human activities.
Within the scientific community, the controversy regarding has centered on the difference between
surface air and upper air temperatures. Information collected since 1979 suggests that while the
earth's surface temperature has increased by about a degree in the past century, the atmospheric
temperature five miles above the earth's surface has indicated very little increase. Nevertheless, the
panel stated that this discrepancy in temperature between surface and upper air does not invalidate
the conclusion that global warming is taking place. Further, the panel noted that natural events,
such as volcanic eruptions, can decrease the temperature in the upper atmosphere.
The major consequences of global warming potentially include the melting of the polar ice caps,
which, in turn, contribute to the rise in sea levels. Many islands across the globe have already
experienced a measurable loss of land as a result. Because global warming may increase the rate of
evaporation, increased precipitation, in the form of stronger and more frequent storm systems, is
another potential outcome. Other consequences of global warming may include the introduction
and proliferation of new infectious diseases, loss of arable land (referred to as "desertification"),
destructive changes to existing ecosystems, loss of biodiversity and the isolation of species, and
concomitant adverse changes in the quality of human life.
International Policy Development in Regard to Global Warming:
Regardless of what the precise nature of the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and
global warming may be, it seems that there is some degree of a connection between the
phenomena. Any substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and global warming trends will
likely involve systematic changes in industrial operations, the use of advanced energy sources and
technologies, as well as global cooperation in implementing and regulating these transformations.
In this regard, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
France Review 2016
France
stipulated the following objectives:
1. To stabilize "greenhouse gas" concentrations within the atmosphere, in such a manner that
would preclude hazardous anthropogenic intervention into the existing biosphere and ecosystems of
the world. This stabilization process would facilitate the natural adaptation of ecosystems to
changes in climate.
2. To ensure and enable sustainable development and food production on a global scale.
*** See section on "International Environmental Agreements and Associations" for information
related to international policies related to limiting greenhouse gases and controlling climate change
emanating from historic summits at Kyoto, Copenhagen, Doha, and Paris. ***
2. Air Pollution
Long before global warming reared its head as a significant issue, those concerned about the
environment and public health noted the deleterious effects of human-initiated combustion upon
the atmosphere. Killer smogs from coal burning triggered acute health emergencies in London and
other places. At a lower level of intensity motor vehicle, power plant, and industrial emissions
impaired long-range visibility and probably had some chronic adverse consequences on the
respiratory systems of persons breathing such air.
In time, scientists began associating the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides released from coal
burning with significant acid deposition in the atmosphere, eventually falling as "acid rain." This
phenomenon has severely degraded forestlands, especially in Europe and a few parts of the United
States. It has also impaired some aquatic ecosystems and eaten away the surface of some human
artifacts, such as marble monuments. Scrubber technology and conversion to cleaner fuels have
enabled the level of industrial production to remain at least constant while significantly reducing
acid deposition. Technologies aimed at cleaning the air and curtailing acid rain, soot, and smog
may, nonetheless, boomerang as the perils of global warming become increasingly serious. In brief,
these particulates act as sort of a sun shade -- comparable to the effect of volcanic eruptions on the
upper atmosphere whereby periods of active volcanism correlate with temporarily cooler weather
conditions. Thus, while the carbon dioxide releases that are an inevitable byproduct of combustion
continue, by scrubbing the atmosphere of pollutants, an industrial society opens itself to greater
insolation (penetration of the sun's rays and consequent heating), and consequently, it is likely to
experience a correspondingly greater rise in ambient temperatures.
The health benefits of removing the sources of acid rain and smog are indisputable, and no one
France Review 2016
France
would recommend a return to previous conditions. Nevertheless, the problematic climatic effects of
continually increasing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a major global
environmental challenge, not as yet addressed adequately.
3. Ozone Depletion
The stratospheric ozone layer functions to prevent ultraviolet radiation from reaching the earth.
Normally, stratospheric ozone is systematically disintegrated and regenerated through natural
photochemical processes. The stratospheric ozone layer, however, has been depleted unnaturally as
a result of anthropogenic (man-made) chemicals, most especially chlorine and bromide compounds
such as chloroflorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and various industrial chemicals in the form of
solvents, refrigerants, foaming agents, aerosol propellants, fire retardants, and fumigants. Ozone
depletion is of concern because it permits a greater degree of ultraviolet-B radiation to reach the
earth, which then increases the incidences of cancerous malignancies, cataracts, and human
immune deficiencies. In addition, even in small doses, ozone depletion affects the ecosystem by
disturbing food chains, agriculture, fisheries and other forms of biological diversity.
Transnational policies enacted to respond to the dangers of ozone depletion include the 1985
Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the 1987 Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Montreal Protocol was subsequently amended in
London in 1990, Copenhagen in 1992 and Vienna in 1995. By 1996, 155 countries had ratified the
Montreal Protocol, which sets out a time schedule for the reduction (and eventual elimination) of
ozone depleting substances (OPS), and bans exports and imports of ODS from and to nonparticipant countries.
In general, the Protocol stipulates that developed countries must eliminate halon consumption by
1994 and CFC consumption by 1996, while developing countries must eliminate these substances
by 2010. Consumption of methyl bromide, which is used as a fumigant, was to be frozen at the
1995 in developed countries, and fully eliminated in 2010, while developing countries are to freeze
consumption by 2002, based on average 1995-1998 consumption levels. Methyl chloroform is to
be phased out by 2005. Under the Montreal Protocol, most ODS will be completely eliminated
from use by 2010.
4. Land Degradation
In recent decades, land degradation in more arid regions of the world has become a serious
concern. The problem, manifest as both "desertification" and "devegetation," is caused primarily by
climate variability and human activities, such as "deforestation," excessive cultivation, overgrazing,
and other forms of land resource exploitation. It is also exacerbated by inadequate irrigation
France Review 2016
France
practices. Although the effects of droughts on drylands have been temporary in the past, today, the
productivity and sustainability of these lands have been severely compromised for the long term.
Indeed, in every region of the world, land degradation has become an acute issue.
Desertification and Devegetation:
"Desertification" is a process of land degradation causing the soil to deteriorate, thus losing its
nutrients and fertility, and eventually resulting in the loss of vegetation, known as "devegetation."
As aforementioned, "desertification" and "devegetation" are caused by human activities, yet human
beings are also the greatest casualties. Because these forms of land degradation affect the ability of
the soil to produce crops, they concomitantly contribute to poverty. As population increases and
demographic concentrations shift, the extent of land subject to stresses by those seeking to wrest
subsistence from it has inexorably risen.
In response, the United Nations has formed the Convention to Combat Desertification-aimed at
implementing programs to address the underlying causes of desertification, as well as measures to
prevent and minimize its effects. Of particular significance is the formulation of policies on
transboundary resources, such as areas around lakes and rivers. At a broader level, the Convention
has established a Conference of Parties (COP), which includes all ratifying governments, for
directing and advancing international action.
To ensure more efficacious use of funding, the Convention intends to reconfigure international aid
to utilize a consultative and coordinated approach in the disbursement and expenditure of donor
funds. In this way, local communities that are affected by desertification will be active participants
in the solution-generation process. In-depth community education projects are envisioned as part of
this new international aid program, and private donor financing is encouraged. Meanwhile, as new
technologies are developed to deal with the problem of desertification, they need to be distributed
for application across the world. Hence, the Convention calls for international cooperation in
scientific research in this regard.
Desertification is a problem of sustainable development. It is directly connected to human
challenges such as poverty, social and economic well-being and environmental protection as well.
Broader environmental issues, such as climate change, biological diversity, and freshwater supplies,
are indirectly related, so any effort to resolve this environmental challenge must entail coordinated
research efforts and joint action.
Deforestation:
Deforestation is not a recent phenomenon. For centuries, human beings have cut down trees to
France Review 2016
France
clear space for land cultivation, or in order to use the wood for fuel. Over the last 200 years, and
most especially after World War II, deforestation increased because the logging industry became a
globally profitable endeavor, and so the clearing of forested areas was accelerated for the purposes
of industrial development. In the long term, this intensified level of deforestation is considered
problematic because the forest is unable to regenerate itself quickly. The deforestation that has
occurred in tropical rainforests is seen as an especially serious concern, due to the perceived
adverse effects of this process upon the entire global ecosystem.
The most immediate consequence of deforestation is soil degradation. Soil, which is necessary for
the growth of vegetation, can be a fragile and vital property. Organically, an extensive evolution
process must take place before soil can produce vegetation, yet at the same time, the effects of
natural elements, such as wind and rain, can easily and quickly degrade this resource. This
phenomenon is known as soil erosion. In addition, natural elements like wind and rain reduce the
amount of fertile soil on the ground, making soil scarcity a genuine problem. When fertile topsoil
that already exists is removed from the landscape in the process of deforestation, soil scarcity is
further exacerbated. Equally significant is the fact that once land has been cleared so that the
topsoil can be cultivated for crop production, not only are the nutrient reserves in the soil depleted,
thus producing crops of inferior quality, but the soil structure itself becomes stressed and
deteriorates further.
Another direct result of deforestation is flooding. When forests are cleared, removing the cover of
vegetation, and rainfall occurs, the flow of water increases across the surface of land. When
extensive water runoff takes place, the frequency and intensity of flooding increases. Other adverse
effects of deforestation include the loss of wildlife and biodiversity within the ecosystem that
supports such life forms.
At a broader level, tropical rainforests play a vital role in maintaining the global environmental
system. Specifically, destruction of tropical rainforests affects the carbon dioxide cycle. When
forests are destroyed by burning (or rotting), carbon dioxide is released into the air, thus
contributing to an intensified "greenhouse effect." The increase in greenhouse gas emissions like
carbon dioxide is a major contributor to global warming, according to many environmental
scientists. Indeed, trees themselves absorb carbon dioxide in the process of photosynthesis, so their
loss also reduces the absorption of greenhouse gases.
Tropical rainforest destruction also adversely affects the nitrogen cycle. Nitrogen is a key nutrient
for both plants and animals. Plants derive nitrogen from soil, while animals obtain it via nitrogenenriched vegetation. This element is essential for the formation of amino acids, and thereby for
proteins and biochemicals that all living things need for metabolism and growth. In the nitrogen
cycle, vegetation acquires these essential proteins and biochemicals, and then cyclically returns
them to the atmosphere and global ecosystem. Accordingly, when tropical rainforest ecosystems
are compromised, not only is vegetation removed; the atmosphere is also affected and climates are
France Review 2016
France
altered. At a more immediate level, the biodiversity within tropical rainforests, including wildlife
and insect species and a wealth of plant varieties, is depleted. Loss of rare plants is of particular
concern because certain species as yet unknown and unused could likely yield many practical
benefits, for instance as medicines.
As a result of the many challenges associated with deforestation, many environmental groups and
agencies have argued for government policies on the sustainable development of forests by
governments across the globe. While many countries have instituted national policies and programs
aimed at reducing deforestation, and substantial research has been advanced in regard to
sustainable and regenerative forestry development, there has been very little progress on an
international level. Generally speaking, most tropical rainforests are located in developing and less
developed countries, where economic growth is often dependent upon the exploitation of tropical
rainforests. Timber resources as well as wildlife hunting tend to be particularly lucrative arenas.
In places such as the Amazon, where deforestation takes place for the construction of energy
plants aimed at industrialization and economic development, there is an exacerbated effect on the
environment. After forests are cleared in order to construct such projects, massive flooding usually
ensues. The remaining trees then rot and decay in the wake of the flooding. As the trees
deteriorate, their biochemical makeup becomes more acidic, producing poisonous substances such
as hydrogen sulphide and methane gases. Acidified water subsequently corrodes the mechanical
equipment and operations of the plants, which are already clogged by rotting wood after the
floodwaters rise.
Deforestation generally arises from an economically plausible short-term motivation, but
nonetheless poses a serious global concern because the effects go beyond national boundaries. The
United Nations has established the World Commission on Forest and Sustainable Development.
This body's task is to determine the optimal means of dealing with the issue of deforestation,
without unduly affecting normal economic development, while emphasizing the global significance
of protecting tropical forest ecosystems.
5. Water Resources
For all terrestrial fauna, including humans, water is the most immediate necessity to sustain life. As
the population has increased and altered an ever-greater portion of the landscape from its natural
condition, demand on water resources has intensified, especially with the development of
industrialization and large-scale irrigation. The supply of freshwater is inherently limited, and
moreover distributed unevenly across the earth's landmasses. Moreover, not just demand for
freshwater but activities certain to degrade it are becoming more pervasive. By contrast, the oceans
form a sort of "last wilderness," still little explored and in large part not seriously affected by
human activity. However, coastal environments - the biologically richest part of the marine
France Review 2016
France
ecosystem-are experiencing major depletion due to human encroachment and over-exploitation.
Freshwater:
In various regions, for instance the Colorado River in the western United States, current
withdrawals of river water for irrigation, domestic, and industrial use consume the entire
streamflow so that almost no water flows into the sea at the river's mouth. Yet development is
ongoing in many such places, implying continually rising demand for water. In some areas reliant
on groundwater, aquifers are being depleted at a markedly faster rate than they are being
replenished. An example is the San Joaquin Valley in California, where decades of high water
withdrawals for agriculture have caused land subsidence of ten meters or more in some spots.
Naturally, the uncertainty of future water supplies is particularly acute in arid and semi-arid regions.
Speculation that the phenomenon of global warming will alter geographic and seasonal rainfall
patterns adds further uncertainty.
Water conservation measures have great potential to alleviate supply shortages. Some city water
systems are so old and beset with leaking pipes that they lose as much water as they meter. Broadscale irrigation could be replaced by drip-type irrigation, actually enhancing the sustainability of
agriculture. In many areas where heavy irrigation has been used for decades, the result is
deposition of salts and other chemicals in the soil such that the land becomes unproductive for
farming and must be abandoned.
Farming is a major source of water pollution. Whereas restrictions on industrial effluents and other
"point sources" are relatively easy to implement, comparable measures to reform hydraulic
practices at farms and other "nonpoint sources" pose a significantly knottier challenge. Farmcaused water pollution takes the following main forms:
- Nitrate pollution found in wells in intensive farming areas as a consequence of heavy fertilizer use
is a threat to human health. The most serious danger is to infants, who by ingesting high-nitrate
water can contract methemoglobinemia, sometimes called "blue baby syndrome," a potentially fatal
condition.
- Fertilizer runoff into rivers and lakes imparts unwanted nutrients that cause algae growth and
eventual loss of oxygen in the body of water, degrading its ability to support fish and other
desirable aquatic life.
- Toxic agricultural chemicals - insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides - are detectable in some
aquifers and waterways.
In general, it is much easier to get a pollutant into water than to retrieve it out. Gasoline additives,
France Review 2016
France
dry cleaning chemicals, other industrial toxins, and in a few areas radionucleides have all been
found in water sources intended for human use. The complexity and long time scale of
subterranean hydrological movements essentially assures that pollutants already deposited in
aquifers will continue to turn up for decades to come. Sophisticated water treatment processes are
available, albeit expensive, to reclaim degraded water and render it fit for human consumption. Yet
source protection is unquestionably a more desirable alternative.
In much of the developing world, and even some low-income rural enclaves of the developed
world, the population lacks ready access to safe water. Surface water and shallow groundwater
supplies are susceptible to contamination from untreated wastewater and failing septic tanks, as
well as chemical hazards. The occurrence of waterborne disease is almost certainly greatly
underreported.
Marine Resources:
Coastal areas have always been desirable places for human habitation, and population pressure on
them continues to increase. Many types of water degradation that affect lakes and rivers also affect
coastal zones: industrial effluents, untreated or partially treated sewage, nutrient load from
agriculture figure prominently in both cases. Prospects for more extreme storms as a result of
global warming, as well as the pervasiveness of poorly planned development in many coastal areas,
forebode that catastrophic hurricanes and landslides may increase in frequency in the future.
Ongoing rise in sea levels will force remedial measures and in some cases abandonment of
currently valuable coastal property.
Fisheries over much of the globe have been overharvested, and immediate conservation measures
are required to preserve stocks of many species. Many governments subsidized factory-scale
fishing fleets in the 1970s and 1980s, and the resultant catch increase evidently surpassed a
sustainable level. It is uncertain how much of the current decline in fish stocks stems from
overharvesting and how much from environmental pollution. The deep ocean remains relatively
unaffected by human activity, but continental shelves near coastlines are frequently seriously
polluted, and these close-to-shore areas are the major biological nurseries for food fish and the
smaller organisms they feed on.
6. Environmental Toxins
Toxic chemical pollution exploded on the public consciousness with disclosure of spectacularly
polluted industrial areas such as Love Canal near Buffalo, New York. There is no question that
pollutants such as organophosphates or radionucleides can be highly deleterious to health, but
evidence to date suggests that seriously affected areas are a localized rather than universal problem.
France Review 2016
France
While some explore the possibilities for a lifestyle that fully eschews use of modern industrial
chemicals, the most prevalent remediative approach is to focus on more judicious use. The most
efficient chemical plants are now able to contain nearly all toxic byproducts of their production
processes within the premises, minimizing the release of such substances into the environment.
Techniques such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) dictate limited rather than broadcast use of
pesticides: application only when needed using the safest available chemical, supplemented as
much as possible with nontoxic controls.
While heightened public awareness and growing technical sophistication suggest a hopeful outlook
on limiting the damage from manmade environmental toxins, one must grant that previous incidents
of their misuse and mishandling have already caused environmental damage that will have to be
dealt with for many years to come. In the case of the most hazardous radioactive substances, the
time scale for successful remediation actually extends beyond that of the recorded history of
civilization. Moreover, in this era of high population density and rapid economic growth, quotidian
activities such as the transport of chemicals will occasionally, seemingly inevitably result in
accidents with adverse environmental consequences.
7. "Islandization" and Biodiversity
With increased awareness regarding the adverse effects of unregulated hunting and habitat
depletion upon wildlife species and other aspects of biodiversity, large-scale efforts across the globe
have been initiated to reduce and even reverse this trend.
In every region of the world, many species of wildlife and areas of biodiversity have been saved
from extinction. Nationally, many countries have adopted policies aimed at preservation and
conservation of species, and one of the most tangible measures has been the proliferation of
protected habitats. Such habitats exist in the form of wildlife reserves, marine life reserves, and
other such areas where biodiversity can be protected from external encroachment and exploitation.
Despite these advances in wildlife and biodiversity protection, further and perhaps more intractable
challenges linger. Designated reserves, while intended to prevent further species decline, exist as
closed territories, fragmented from other such enclaves and disconnected from the larger
ecosystem. This environmental scenario is referred to as "islandization." Habitat reserves often
serve as oversized zoos or game farms, with landscapes and wildlife that have effectively been
"tamed" to suit. Meanwhile, the larger surrounding ecosystem continues to be seriously degraded
and transformed, while within the islandized habitat, species that are the focus of conservation
efforts may not have sufficient range and may not be able to maintain healthy genetic variability.
As a consequence, many conservationists and preservationists have demanded that substantially
France Review 2016
France
larger portions of land be withheld as habitat reserves, and a network of biological corridors to
connect continental reserves be established. While such efforts to combat islandization have
considerable support in the United States, how precisely such a program would be instituted,
especially across national boundaries, remains a matter of debate. International conservationists
and preservationists say without a network of reserves a massive loss of biodiversity will result.
The concept of islandization illustrates why conservation and preservation of wildlife and
biodiversity must consider and adopt new, broader strategies. In the past, conservation and
preservation efforts have been aimed at specific species, such as the spotted owl and grizzly bear in
North America, the Bengal tiger in Southeast Asia, the panda in China, elephants in Africa. Instead,
the new approach is to simultaneously protect many and varied species that inhabit the same
ecosystem. This method, referred to as "bio-regional conservation," may more efficaciously
generate longer-term and more far-reaching results precisely because it is aimed at preserving entire
ecosystems, and all the living things within.
More About Biodiversity Issues:
This section is directly taken from the United Nations Environmental Program: "Biodiversity
Assessment"
The Global Biodiversity Assessment, completed by 1500 scientists under the auspices of United
Nations Environmental Program in 1995, updated what is known (or unknown) about global
biological diversity at the ecosystem, species and genetic levels. The assessment was uncertain of
the total number of species on Earth within an order of magnitude. Of its working figure of 13
million species, only 13 percent are scientifically described. Ecological community diversity is also
poorly known, as is its relationship to biological diversity, and genetic diversity has been studied for
only a small number of species. The effects of human activities on biodiversity have increased so
greatly that the rate of species extinctions is rising to hundreds or thousands of times the
background level. These losses are driven by increasing demands on species and their habitats, and
by the failure of current market systems to value biodiversity adequately. The Assessment calls for
urgent action to reverse these trends.
There has been a new recognition of the importance of protecting marine and aquatic biodiversity.
The first quantitative estimates of species losses due to growing coral reef destruction predict that
almost 200,000 species, or one in five presently contributing to coral reef biodiversity, could die
out in the next 40 years if human pressures on reefs continue to increase.
Since Rio, many countries have improved their understanding of the status and importance of their
biodiversity, particularly through biodiversity country studies such as those prepared under the
auspices of UNEP/GEF. The United Kingdom identified 1250 species needing monitoring, of
France Review 2016
France
which 400 require action plans to ensure their survival. Protective measures for biodiversity, such
as legislation to protect species, can prove effective. In the USA, almost 40 percent of the plants
and animals protected under the Endangered Species Act are now stable or improving as a direct
result of recovery efforts. Some African countries have joined efforts to protect threatened species
through the 1994 Lusaka Agreement, and more highly migratory species are being protected by
specialized cooperative agreements among range states under the Bonn Agreement.
There is an emerging realization that a major part of conservation of biological diversity must take
place outside of protected areas and involve local communities. The extensive agricultural areas
occupied by small farmers contain much biodiversity that is important for sustainable food
production. Indigenous agricultural practices have been and continue to be important elements in
the maintenance of biodiversity, but these are being displaced and lost. There is a new focus on the
interrelationship between agrodiversity conservation and sustainable use and development practices
in smallholder agriculture, with emphasis on use of farmers' knowledge and skills as a source of
information for sustainable farming.
Perhaps even more important than the loss of biodiversity is the transformation of global
biogeochemical cycles, the reduction in the total world biomass, and the decrease in the biological
productivity of the planet. While quantitative measurements are not available, the eventual
economic and social consequences may be so significant that the issue requires further attention.
******
Specific sources used for this section:
Bendall, Roger. 1996. "Biodiversity: the follow up to Rio". The Globe 30:4-5, April 1996.
Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Implications. 1995. Special issue on "People,
Land Management and Environmental Change", Vol. 3, No. 4, September 1995.
Golubev, Genady N. (Moscow University) In litt. 29 June 1996.
France Review 2016
France
Heywood, V.H. (ed.). 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment. United Nations Environment
Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Heywood, V.H. 1996. "The Global Biodiversity Assessment". The Globe, 30:2-4, April 1996.
Reaka-Kudla, Marjorie. 1996. Paper presented at American Association for Advancement of
Science, February 1996. Quoted in Pain, Stephanie. "Treasures lost in reef madness". New
Scientist, 17 February 1996.
Uitto, Juha I., and Akiko Ono (eds). 1996. Population, Land Management and Environmental
Change. The United Nations University, Tokyo.
USFWS. 1994. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report to Congress, cited in news release 21 July
1994.
Online resources used generally in the Environmental Overview:
Environmental Protection Agency Global Warming Site. URL: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming
Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations: Forestry. URL:
http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/sofo/en/
Global Warming Information Page. URL: http://globalwarming.org
U n i t e d N a t i o n s E n v i r o n m e n t a l
http://www.unep.org/GEO/GEO_Products/Assessment_Reports/
P r o g r a m .
U R L :
United Nations Global Environmental Outlook. URL: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/
Note on Edition Dates:
The edition dates for textual resources are noted above because they were used to formulate the
original content. We also have used online resources (cited above) to update coverage as needed.
France Review 2016
France
original content. We also have used online resources (cited above) to update coverage as needed.
Information Resources
For more information about environmental concepts, CountryWatch recommends the following
resources:
The United Nations Environmental Program Network (with country profiles)
<http://www.unep.net/>
The United Nations Environment Program on Climate Change
<http://climatechange.unep.net/>
The United Nations Environmental Program on Waters and Oceans
<http://www.unep.ch/earthw/Pdepwat.htm>
The United Nations Environmental Program on Forestry: "Forests in Flux"
<http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/flux/homepage.htm>
FAO "State of the World's Forests"
<http://www.fao.org/forestry/FO/SOFO/SOFO99/sofo99-e.stm>
World Resources Institute.
<http://www.wri.org/>
Harvard University Center for Health and the Global Environment
<http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/the-review.html>
The University of Wisconsin Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment
http://sage.aos.wisc.edu/
France Review 2016
France
International Environmental Agreements and Associations
International Policy Development in Regard to Global Warming:
Introduction
Regardless of what the precise nature of the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and
global warming may be, it seems that there is some degree of a connection between the
phenomena. Any substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and global warming trends will
likely involve systematic changes in industrial operations, the use of advanced energy sources and
technologies, as well as global cooperation in implementing and regulating these transformations.
In this regard, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
stipulated the following objectives:
1. To stabilize "greenhouse gas" concentrations within the atmosphere, in such a manner that
would preclude hazardous anthropogenic intervention into the existing biosphere and ecosystems of
the world. This stabilization process would facilitate the natural adaptation of ecosystems to
changes in climate.
2. To ensure and enable sustainable development and food production on a global scale.
Following are two discusssions regarding international policies on the environment, followed by
listings of international accords.
Special Entry: The Kyoto Protocol
The UNFCCC was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and entered into force in 1994. Over
175 parties were official participants.
Meanwhile, however, many of the larger, more industrialized nations failed to reach the emissions'
reduction targets, and many UNFCCC members agreed that the voluntary approach to reducing
emissions had not been successful. As such, UNFCCC members reached a consensus that legally
binding limits were necessitated, and agreed to discuss such a legal paradigm at a meeting in Kyoto,
Japan in 1997. At that meeting, the UNFCCC forged the Kyoto Protocol. This concord is the first
France Review 2016
France
legally binding international agreement that places limits on emissions from industrialized countries.
The major greenhouse gas emissions addressed in the Kyoto Protocol include carbon dioxide,
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and methane.
The provisions of the Kyoto Protocol stipulate that economically advanced nations must reduce
their combined emissions of greenhouse gases, by approximately five percent from their 1990
levels, before the 2008-2010 deadline. Countries with the highest carbon dioxide emissions, such as
the United States (U.S.), many of the European Union (EU) countries, and Japan, are to reduce
emissions by a scale of 6 to 8 percent. All economically advanced nations must show
"demonstrable progress" by 2005. In contrast, no binding limits or timetable have been set on
developing countries. Presumably, this distinction is due to the fact that most developing countries - with the obvious exceptions of India and China -- simply do not emit as many greenhouse gases
as do more industrially advanced countries. Meanwhile, these countries are entrenched in the
process of economic development.
Regardless of the aforementioned reasoning, there has been strong opposition against the
asymmetrical treatment assigned to emissions limits among developed and developing countries.
Although this distinction might be regarded as unfair in principle, associations such as the Alliance
of Small Island States have been vocal in expressing how global warming -- a result of greenhouse
gas emissions - has contributed to the rise in sea level, and thus deleteriously affected their very
existence as island nation states. For this reason, some parties have suggested that economically
advanced nations, upon returning to their 1990 levels, should be required to further reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions by a deadline of 2005. In response, interested parties have observed that
even if such reductions were undertaken by economically advanced nations, they would not be
enough to completely control global warming. Indeed, a reduction in the rate of fossil fuel usage by
developing nations would also be necessary to have substantial ameliorative effect on global
warming. Indeed, a reduction in the rate of fossil fuel usage by developing nations would also be
necessary to have substantial ameliorative effect on global warming.
As such, the Protocol established a "Clean Development Mechanism" which permits developed
countries to invest in projects aimed at reducing emissions within developing countries in return for
credit for the reductions. Ostensibly, the objective of this mechanism is to curtail emissions in
developing countries without unduly penalizing them for their economic development. Under this
model, the countries with more potential emissions credits could sell them to other signatories of
the Kyoto Protocol, whose emissions are forecast to significantly rise in the next few years. Should
this trading of emissions credits take place, it is estimated that the Kyoto Protocol's emissions
targets could still be met.
In 1999, the International Energy Outlook projected that Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union
and Newly Independent States, as well as parts of Asia, are all expected to show a marked
decrease in their level of energy-related carbon emissions in 2010. Nations with the highest
France Review 2016
France
emissions, specifically, the U.S., the EU and Japan, are anticipated to reduce their emissions by up
to 8 percent by 2012. By 2000, however, the emissions targets were not on schedule for
achievement. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates forecast that by 2010, there will be
a 34 percent increase in carbon emissions from the 1990 levels, in the absence of major shifts in
policy, economic growth, energy prices, and consumer trends. Despite this assessment in the U.S.,
international support for the Kyoto Protocol remained strong, especially among European countries
and island states, who view the pact as one step in the direction away from reliance on fossil fuels
and other sources of greenhouse gases.
In 2001, U.S. President, George W. Bush, rejected his country's participation in the Kyoto
Protocol, saying that the costs imposed on the global economic system, and especially, on the US,
overshadowed the benefits of the Protocol. He also cited the unfair burden on developed nations to
reduce emissions, as another primary reasons for withdrawal from the international pact, as well as
insufficient evidence regarding the science of global warming. Faced with impassioned international
disapproval for his position, the U.S. president stated that his administration remained interested in
dealing with the matter of global warming, but would endorse alternative measures to combat the
problem, such as voluntary initiatives limiting emissions. Critics of Bush's position, however, have
noted that it was the failure of voluntary initiatives to reduce emissions following the Rio Summit
that led to the establishment of the Kyoto Protocol in the first place.
In the wake of the Bush administration's decision, many participant countries resigned themselves
to the reality that the goals of the Kyoto Protocol might not be achieved without U.S. involvement.
Nevertheless, in Bonn, Germany, in July 2001, the remaining participant countries struck a political
compromise on some of the key issues and sticking points, and planned to move forward with the
Protocol, irrespective of the absence of the U.S. The key compromise points included the
provision for countries to offset their targets with carbon sinks (these are areas of forest and
farmland which can absorb carbon through the process of photosynthesis). Another compromise
point within the broader Bonn Agreement was the reduction of emissions cuts of six gases from
over 5 percent to a more achievable 2 percent. A third key change was the provision of funding for
less wealthy countries to adopt more progressive technologies.
In late October and early November 2001, the UNFCC's 7th Conference of the Parties met in
Marrakesh, Morocco, to finalize the measures needed to make the Kyoto Protocol operational.
Although the UNFCC projected that ratification of the Protocol would make it legally binding
within a year, many critics noted that the process had fallen short of implementing significant
changes in policy that would be necessary to actually stop or even slow climate change. They also
maintained that the absence of U.S. participation effectively rendered the Protocol into being a
political exercise without any substance, either in terms of transnational policy or in terms of
environmental concerns.
France Review 2016
France
The adoption of the compromises ensconced within the Bonn Agreement had been intended to
make the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol more palatable to the U.S. In this regard, it failed to
achieve its objective as the Bush administration continued to eschew participation in the
international accord. Still, however, the Bonn Agreement did manage to render a number of other
positive outcomes. Specifically, in 2002, key countries, such as Russia, Japan and Canada agreed
to ratify the protocol, bringing the number of signatories to 178. The decision by key countries to
ratify the protocol was regarded as "the kiss of life" by observers.
By 2005, on the eve of a climate change conference in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair
was hoping to deal with the problems of climate change beyond the provisions set forth in the
Kyoto Protocol. Acknowledging that the Kyoto Protocol could not work in its current form, Blair
wanted to open the discussion for a new climate change plan.
Blair said that although most of the world had signed on to Kyoto, the protocol could not meet any
of its practical goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions without the participation of the United
States, the world's largest polluter. He also noted that any new agreement would have to include
India and China -- significant producers of greenhouse gas emissions, but exempt from Kyoto
because they have been classified as developing countries. Still, he said that progress on dealing
with climate change had been stymied by "a reluctance to face up to reality and the practical action
needed to tackle problem."
Blair also touted the "huge opportunities" in technology and pointed toward the possibilities offered
by wind, solar and nuclear power, along with fuel cell technology, eco-friendly biofuels, and
carbon capture and storage which could generate low carbon power. Blair also asserted that his
government was committed to achieving its domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by
20 percent by 2010.
In the United States, President George W. Bush has said that global warming remained a debatable
issue and despite conclusions reached by his own Environmental Protection Agency, he has not
agreed with the conclusion that global warming and climate change are linked with human
activities. Bush has also refused to ratify Kyoto on the basis of its economic costs.
Australia, an ally of the United States, has taken a similarly dim view of the Kyoto Protocol.
Ahead of the November 2005 climate change meeting in Canada in which new goals for the
protocol were to be discussed, Australia 's Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, said that
negotiating new greenhouse gas emission levels for the Kyoto Protocol would be a waste of time.
Campbell said, "There is a consensus that the caps, targets and timetables approach is flawed. If
we spend the next five years arguing about that, we'll be fiddling and negotiating while Rome
burns." Campbell, like the Bush administration, has also advocated a system of voluntary action
in which industry takes up new technologies rather than as a result of compelling the reduction of
emissions. But the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has called on its government to
France Review 2016
France
ratify the Kyoto Protocol, to establish a system of emissions trading, and to set binding limits on
emissions. Interestingly, although it did not sign on to Kyoto , Australia was expected to meet its
emissions target by 2012 (an 8 percent increase in 1990 levels in keeping with the country's
reliance on coal). But this success has nothing to do with new technologies and is due to statebased regulations on land clearing.
Note: The Kyoto Protocol calls for developed nations to cut greenhouse emissions by 5.2 percent
of 1990 levels by 2012.
Special Entry: Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen (2009) -In December 2009, the United Nations Climate Change Summit opened in the Danish capital of
Copenhagen. The summit was scheduled to last from Dec. 7-18, 2009. Delegates from more than
190 countries were in attendance, and approximately 100 world leaders, including British Prime
Minister Gordon Brown and United States President Barack Obama, were expected to participate.
At issue was the matter of new reductions targets on greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
Despite earlier fears that little concurrence would come from the conference, effectively pushing
significant actions forward to a 2010 conference in Mexico City, negotiators were now reporting
that the talks were productive and several key countries, such as South Africa, had pledged to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The two main issues that could still lead to cleavages were
questions of agreement between the industrialized countries and the developing countries of the
world, as well as the overall effectiveness of proposals in seriously addressing the perils of climate
change.
On Dec. 9, 2009, four countries -- the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico and Norway - presented a document outlining ideas for raising and managing billions of dollars, which would be
intended to help vulnerable countries dealing with the perils of climate change. Described as a
"green fund," the concept could potentially help small island states at risk because of the rise in sea
level. Bangladesh identified itself as a potential recipient of an assistance fund, noting that as a
country plagued by devastating floods, it was particularly hard-hit by climate change. The "green
fund" would fall under the rubric of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, for which developed countries have been committed to quantifying their emission
reduction targets, and also to providing financial and technical support to developing countries.
The United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico and Norway also called for the creation of a new legal
treaty that would replace the Kyoto Protocol. This new treaty, which could go into force in 2012,
would focus largely on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. But Australia went
even further in saying that the successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, should be one with
provisions covering all countries. Such a move would be a departure from the structure of the
France Review 2016
France
Kyoto Protocol, which contained emissions targets for industrialized countries due to the prevailing
view that developed countries had a particular historic responsibility to be accountable for climate
change. More recently, it has become apparent that substantial reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions demanded by scientists would only come to pass with the participation also of significant
developing nation states, such as China and India. Indeed, one of the most pressing critiques of the
Kyoto Protocol was that it was a "paper tiger" that failed to address the impact of the actions of
emerging economies like China and India, with its focus on the developed economies.
Now, in 2009, China -- as the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter -- was responding this
dubious distinction by vocalizing its criticism of the current scenario and foregrounding its new
commitments. Ahead of the Copenhagen summit, China had announced it would reduce the
intensity of its carbon emissions per unit of its GDP in 2020 by 40 to 45 percent against 2005
levels. With that new commitment at hand, China was now accusing the United States and the
European Union of shirking their own responsibilities by setting weak targets for greenhouse gas
emissions cuts. Senior Chinese negotiator, Su Wei, characterized the goals of the world's second
largest greenhouse gas emitter -- the United States -- as "not notable," and the European Union's
target as "not enough." Su Wei also took issue with Japan for setting implausible preconditions.
On Dec. 11, 2009, China demanded that developed and wealthy countries in Copenhagen should
help deliver a real agreement on climate change by delivering on their promises to reduce carbon
emissions and provide financial support for developing countries to adapt to global warming. In so
doing, China's Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said his country was hoping that a "balanced
outcome" would emerge from the discussions at the summit. Echoing the position of the Australian
government, He Yafei spoke of a draft agreement as follows: "The final document we're going to
adopt needs to be taking into account the needs and aspirations of all countries, particularly the
most vulnerable ones."
China's Vice Foreign Minister emphasized the fact that climate change was "a matter of survival"
for developing countries, and accordingly, such countries need wealthier and more developed
countries to accentuate not only their pledges of emissions reduction targets, but also their financial
commitments under the aforementioned United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. To that end, scientists and leaders of small island states in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific
Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, have highlighted the existential threat posed by global warming and
the concomitant rise in sea level.
China aside, attention was also on India -- another major player in the developing world and a
country with an industrializing economy that was impacting the environment. At issue was the
Indian government's decision to set a carbon intensity target, which would slow emissions growth
by up to 25 percent by the 2020 deadline. This strong position was resisted by some elements in
India, who argued that their country should not be taking such a strong position when developed
wealthy countries were yet to show accountability for their previous commitments to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The matter grew so heated that the members of the opposition stormed
France Review 2016
France
out of the parliament in protest as Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh defended the
policy. But the political pressure at home in India was leaving the Indian delegation in Copenhagen
in a state of chaos as well. In fact, India's top environmental negotiator refused to travel to
Copenhagen in protest of the government's newly-announced stance.
China and India were joined by Brazil and South Africa in the crafting of a draft document calling
for a new global climate treaty to be completed by June 2010. Of concern has been the realization
that there was insufficient time to find concurrence on a full legal treaty, which would leave
countries only with a politically-binding text by the time the summit at Copenhagen closed. But
Guyana's leader, President Bharrat Jagdeo, warned that the summit in Denmark would be
classified as a failure unless a binding document was agreed upon instead of just political
consensus. He urged his cohorts to act with purpose saying, "Never before have science,
economics, geo-strategic self-interest and politics intersected in such a way on an issue that impacts
everyone on the planet."
Likewise, Tuvalu demanded that legally binding agreements emerge from Copenhagen. Its
proposal was supported by many of the vulnerable countries, from small island states and subSaharan Africa, all of whom warned of the catastrophic impact of climate change on their
citizens. Tuvalu also called for more aggressive action, such as an amendment to the 1992
agreement, which would focus on sharp greenhouse gas emissions and the accepted rise in
temperatures, due to the impact the rise in seas. The delegation from Kiribati joined the call by
drawing attention to the fact that one village had to be abandoned due to waist-high water, and
more such effects were likely to follow. Kiribati's Foreign Secretary, Tessie Lambourne, warned
that the people of Kiribati could well be faced with no homeland in the future saying, "Nobody in
this room would want to leave their homeland." But despite such impassioned pleas and
irrespective of warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the rise in sea
level from melting polar ice caps would deleteriously affect low-lying atolls such as such as Tuvalu
and Kiribati in the Pacific, and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, the oil-giant Saudi Arabia was
able to block this move.
Meanwhile, within the developed countries, yet another power struggle was brewing. The
European Union warned it would only agree to raise its target of 20 percent greenhouse gas
emissions reductions to 30 percent if the United States demonstrated that it would do more to
reduce its own emissions. It was unknown if such pressure would yield results. United States
President Barack Obama offered a "provisional" 2020 target of 17 percent reductions, noting that
he could not offer greater concessions at Copenhagen due to resistance within the United States
Congress, which was already trying to pass a highly controversial "cap and trade" emissions
legislation. However, should that emissions trading bill fail in the Senate, the United States
Environment Protection Agency's declaration that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health
and the environment was expected to facilitate further regulations and limits on power plants and
factories at the national level. These moves could potentially strengthen the Obama
France Review 2016
France
administration's offering at Copenhagen. As well, President Obama also signaled that he would be
willing to consider the inclusion of international forestry credits.
Such moves indicated willingness by the Obama administration to play a more constructive role on
the international environmental scene than its predecessor, the Bush administration. Indeed, ahead
of his arrival at the Copenhagen summit, President Barack Obama's top environmental advisors
promised to work on a substantial climate change agreement. To that end, United States
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said at a press conference, "We are
seeking robust engagement with all of our partners around the world." But would this proengagement assertion yield actual results?
By Dec. 12, 2009, details related to a draft document prepared by Michael Zammit Cutajar, the
head of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action, were released at the
Copenhagen climate conference. Included in the document were calls for countries to make major
reductions in carbon emissions over the course of the next decade. According to the Washington
Post, industrialized countries were called on to make cuts of between 25 percent and 40 percent
below 1990 levels -- reductions that were far more draconian than the United States was likely to
accept. As discussed above, President Obama had offered a provisional reduction target of 17
percent. The wide gap between the released draft and the United States' actual stated position
suggested there was much more negotiating in the offing if a binding agreement could be forged,
despite the Obama administration's claims that it was seeking greater engagement on this issue.
In other developments, the aforementioned call for financial support of developing countries to deal
with the perils of climate change was partly answered by the European Union on Dec. 11, 2009.
The European bloc pledged an amount of 2.4 billion euros (US$3.5 billion) annually from 2010 to
2012. Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren of Sweden -- the country that holds the rotating
presidency of the European Union at the time of the summit -- put his weight behind the notion of
a "legally binding deal." Meanwhile, Yvo de Boer, a top United Nations climate change official,
focused less on the essence of the agreement and more on tangible action and effects saying,
"Copenhagen will only be a success if it delivers significant and immediate action that begins the
day the conference ends."
The division between developed and developing countries in Copenhagen reached new heights on
Dec. 14, 2009, when some of the poor and less developed countries launched a boycott at the
summit. The move, which was spurred by African countries but backed by China and India,
appeared to be geared toward redirecting attention and primary responsibility to the wealthier and
more industrialized countries. The impasse was resolved after the wealthier and more
industrialized countries offered assurances that they did not intend on shirking from their
commitments to reducing greenhouse gases. As a result, the participating countries ceased the
boycott.
Outside the actual summit, thousands of protestors had gathered to demand crucial global
France Review 2016
France
warming, leading to clashes between police and demonstrators elsewhere in the Danish capital city.
There were reports of scattered violence across Copenhagen and more than 1,000 people were
arrested.
Nevertheless, by the second week of the climate change summit, hopes of forging a strong deal
were eroding as developed and developing nations remained deadlocked on sharing cuts in
greenhouse gases, and particularly on the matters of financing and temperature goals. In a bid to
shore up support for a new climate change, United States President Barack Obama joined other
world leaders in Copenhagen. On Dec. 14, 2009, there was a standoff brewing between the
United States and China. At issue was China's refusal to accept international monitoring of its
expressed targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The United States argued that China's
opposition to verification could be a deal-breaker.
By the close of the summit, the difficult process eventually resulted in some consensus being
cultivated. A draft text called for $100 billion a year by 2020 to assist poor nations cope with
climate change, while aiming to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial levels. The deal also included specific targets for developed countries to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and called for reductions by developing countries as a share of their
economies. Also included in the agreement was a mechanism to verify compliance. The details of
the agreement were supported by President Barack Obama, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
This draft would stand as an interim agreement, with a legally-binding international pact unlikely to
materialize until 2010. In this way, the summit in Copenhagen failed to achieve its central
objective, which was to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.
Editor's Note
In the background of these developments was the growing global consciousness related to global
warming and climate change. Indeed, as the Copenhagen summit was ongoing, it was clear there
was enormous concurrence on the significance of the stakes with an editorial on the matter of
climate change being published in 56 newspapers in 45 countries. That editorial warned that
without global action, climate change would "ravage our planet." Meanwhile, a global survey taken
by Globescan showed that concern over global warming had exponentially increased from 1998 -when only 20 percent of respondents believed it to be a serious problem -- to 64 percent in 2009.
Such survey data, however, was generated ahead of the accusations by climate change skeptics
that some climate scientists may have overstated the case for global warming, based on emails
derived in an illicit manner from a British University.
Special Entry: Climate change talks in Doha in Qatar extend life of Kyoto Protocol (2012)
France Review 2016
France
December 2012 saw climate talks ensue in the Qatari city of Doha as representatives from
countries across the world gathered to discuss the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to
minimize greenhouse gas emissions. The summit yielded results with decisions made (1) to extend
the Kyoto Protocol until 2020, and (2) for wealthier countries to compensate poorer countries for
the losses and damage incurred as a result of climate change.
In regards to the second matter, Malia Talakai of Nauru, a leading negotiator for the Alliance of
Small Island States, explained the necessity of the compensation package as follows: “We are trying
to say that if you pollute you must help us.”
This measure was being dubbed the "Loss and Damage" mechanism, and was being linked with
United States President Barack Obama's request for $60 billion from Congress to deal with the
devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy months before. The sight of a hurricane bearing down on
the northern Atlantic seaboard, along with the reality of the scope of reconstruction, appeared to
have illustrated the economic costs of climate change -- not so much as a distant environmental
issue -- but as a danger to the quotidian lives of people. Still, there was blame to be placed on the
United States and European countries -- some of world's largest emitters -- for failing to do more
to reduce emissions.
To that latter end, there was in fact little progress made on the central issue of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. Had those emissions been reduced, there would have been less of a need to
financially deal with the devastation caused by climate change. One interpretation was that the
global community was accepting the fact that industrialization was contributing to global warming,
which had deleterious effects on the polar ice caps and concomitantly on the rise of sea level, with
devastating effects for small island nations. Thus, wealthier countries were willing to pay around
$10 billion a year through 2020, effectively in "damages," to the poor countries that could be
viewed as the "collateral damage" of industrial progress. But damages today could potentially be
destruction tomorrow, leaving in place the existential challenges and burdens to be born by some of
the world's smallest and least wealthy island countries.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the representative for the small island nation states at the Doha summit
responded with ire, characterizing the lack of progress on reducing emissions as follows: "We see
the package before us as deeply deficient in mitigation (carbon cuts) and finance. It's likely to lock
us on the trajectory to a 3,4,5C rise in global temperatures, even though we agreed to keep the
global average temperature rise of 1.5C to ensure survival of all islands. There is no new finance
(for adapting to climate change and getting clean energy) -- only promises that something might
materialize in the future. Those who are obstructive need to talk not about how their people will
live, but whether our people will live."
Indeed, in most small island countries not just in the Pacific, but also the Caribbean and Indian
Ocean, ecological concerns and the climate crisis have been dominant themes with dire life and
France Review 2016
France
death consequences looming in the background for their people. Small island nations in these
region are already at risk from the rise of sea-level, tropical cyclones, floods. But their very
livelihoods of fishing and subsistence farming were also at risk as a result of ecological and
environmental changes. Increasingly high storm surges can wipe out entire villages and contaminate
water supplies. Accordingly, the very existence of island nations, such as Kiribati and Tuvalu, are
at severe risk of being obliterated from the map. Yet even with the existential threat of being wiped
off the map in the offing, the international community has been either slow or restrictive in its
efforts to deal with global warming, climate change, economic and ecological damage, as well as
the emerging global challenge of environmental refugees.
A 2012 report from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Pacific Regional
Environment Program underlined the concerns of small island nations and their people as it
concluded that the livelihoods of approximately 10 million people in Pacific island communities
were increasingly vulnerable to climate change. In fact, low-lying islands in that region would
likely confront losses of up to 18 percent of gross domestic product due to climate change,
according to the report. The report covers 21 countries and territories, including Fiji, Kiribati,
Samoa and Tonga, and recommended environmental legislation intended to deal with the climate
crisis facing the small island countries particularly. As noted by David Sheppard, the director
general of the Pacific Regional Environment Program that co-sponsored this study: “The findings...
emphasize the need more than ever to raise the bar through collective actions that address the
region's environmental needs at all levels."
Regardless of the failures of the summit in Qatar (discussed above), the meeting did facilitate a
process starting in 2015, which would bind both wealthy and poor countries together in the
mission of forging a new binding treaty that would replace the Kyoto Protocol and tackle the
central causes of climate change.
For more information on the threats faced in small island nations by climate change and the
measures being undertaken to lobby for international action, please see the Alliance for Small
Island States available online at the URL: http://aosis.org/
Special Report
COP 21 summit in Paris ends with historic agreement to tackle climate change; rare
international consensus formed on environmental crisis facing the planet (2015) -In mid-December 2015, the highly-anticipated United Nations climate conference of parties (COP)
in Paris, France, ended with a historic agreement. In fact, it would very likely be understood as
the most significant international agreement signed by all the recognized countries of the world
since the Cold War. Accordingly, the Paris Agreement was being distinguished as the first
France Review 2016
France
multilateral pact that would compel all countries across the world to cut its carbon emissions -- one
of the major causes of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming,
and its deleterious effects ranging from the dangerous rise in sea level to catastrophic climate
change.
The accord, which was dubbed to be the "Paris Agreement," was the work of rigorous diplomacy
and fervent environmental advocacy, and it aimed to address the climate change crisis facing the
planet. As many as 195 countries were represented in the negotiations that led to the landmark
climate deal. Indeed, it was only after weeks of passionate debate that international concurrence
was reached in addressing the environmental challenges confronting the world, with particular
attention to moving beyond fossil fuels and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The success of the COP 21 summit in Paris and the emergence of the landmark Paris Agreement
was, to some extent, attributed to the efforts of France's Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius who
presided over the negotiations. The French foreign minister's experience and credentials as a
seasoned diplomat and respected statesman paid dividends. He skillfully guided the delegates from
almost 200 countries and interest groups along the negotiations process, with ostensibly productive
results and a reasonably robust deal to show for it.
On Dec. 12, 2015, French Foreign Minister Fabius officially adopted the agreement, declaring: "I
now invite the COP to adopt the decision entitled Paris Agreement outlined in the document.
Looking out to the room I see that the reaction is positive, I see no objections. The Paris
agreement is adopted." Once Foreign Minister Fabius' gavel was struck, symbolically inaugurating
the Paris Agreement into force, the COP delegate rushed to their feet with loud and bouyant cheers
as well as thunderous applause.
In general, the Paris Agreement was being hailed as a victory for enviromental activists and a
triumph for international diplomats, while at the same time being understood as simply an initial -and imperfect -- move in the direction of a sustainable future. China's chief negotiator, Xie
Zhenhua, issued this message, saying that while the accord was not ideal, it should "not prevent
us from marching historical steps forward."
United States President Barack Obama lauded the deal as both "ambitious" and "historic," and the
work of strenuous multilateral negotiations as he declared, "Together, we've shown what's possible
when the world stands as one." The United States leader acknowledged that the accord was not
"perfect," but he reminded the critics that it was "the best chance to save the one planet we have. "
Former United States Vice President Al Gore, one of the world's most well known environmental
advocates, issued a lengthy statement on the accompishments ensconced in the Paris Agreement.
He highlighted the fact that the Paris Agreement was a first step towards a future with a reduced
carbon footprint on Planet Earth as he said, "The components of this agreement -- including a
France Review 2016
France
strong review mechanism to enhance existing commitments and a long-term goal to eliminate
global-warming pollution this century -- are essential to unlocking the necessary investments in our
future. No agreement is perfect, and this one must be strengthened over time, but groups across
every sector of society will now begin to reduce dangerous carbon pollution through the framework
of this agreement."
The central provisions of the Paris Agreement included the following items:
- Greenhouse gas emissions should peak as quickly as possible, with a move towards balancing
energy sources, and ultimately the decrease of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century
- Global temperature increase would be limited to 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial
levels and would be held "well below" the two degrees Centigrade threshold
- Progress on these goals would be reviewed every five years beginning in 2020 with new
greenhouse gas reduction targets issued every five years
- $100 billion would be expended each year in climate finance for developing countries to move
forward with green technologies, with further climate financing to be advanced in the years beyond
It should be noted that there both legally binding and voluntary elements contained within the
Paris Agreement. Specifically, the submission of an emissions reduction target and the regular
review of that goal would be legally mandatory for all countries. Stated differently, there would be
a system in place by which experts would be able to track the carbon-cutting progress of each
country. At the same time, the specific targets to be set by countries would be determined at the
discretion of the countries, and would not be binding. While there was some criticism over this
non-binding element, the fact of the matter was that the imposition of emissions targets was
believed to be a major factor in the failure of climate change talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, in
2009.
In 2015, the talks faced challenges as several countries, such as China and India, objected to
conditions that would stymie economic and development. In order to avoid that kind of landmine,
a system Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) was developed and formed the
basis of the accord. As such, the Paris Agreement would, in fact, facilitate economic growth and
development, as well as technological progress, but with the goal of long-term ecological
sustainability based on low carbon sources. In fact, the agreement heralded as "the beginning of
the end of the fossil fuel era." As noted by Nick Mabey, the head of the climate diplomacy
organization E3G, said, "Paris means governments will go further and faster to tackle climate
change than ever before. The transition to a low carbon economy is now unstoppable, ensuring
the end of the fossil fuel age."
A particular sticking point in the agreement was the $100 billion earmarked for climate financing
for developing countries to transition from traditional fossil fuels to green energy technologies and a
low carbon future. In 2014, a report by the International Energy Agency indicated that the cost of
France Review 2016
France
that transition would actually be around $44 trillion by the mid-century -- an amount that would
render the $100 billion being promised to be a drop in the proverbial bucket. However, the general
expectation was that the Republican-controlled Senate in the United States, which would have to
ratify the deal in that country, was not interested in contributing significant funds for the cause of
climate change.
A key strength of the Paris Agreement was the ubiquitous application of measures to all countries.
Of note was the frequently utilized concept of "flexibility" with regard to the Paris Agreement.
Specifically, the varying capacities of the various countries in meeting their obligations would be
anticipated and accorded flexibility. This aspect presented something of a departure from the 1997
Kyoto Protocol, which drew a sharp distinction between developed and developing countries, and
mandated a different set of obligations for those categories of countries. Thus, under Kyoto,
China and India were not held to the same standards as the United States and European
countries. In the Paris Agreement, there would be commitments from all countries across the
globe.
Another notable strength of the Paris Agreement was the fact that the countries of the world were
finally able to reach consensus on the vital necessity to limit global temperature increases to 1.5
degrees Centrigrade. Ahead of the global consensus on the deal, and as controversy continued to
surface over the targeted global temperature limits, the leaders of island countries were sounding
the alarm about the melting of the Polar ice caps and the associated rise in seal level. Prime
Minister Enele Sopoaga of Tuvalu issued this dismal reminder: “Tuvalu’s future … is already
bleak and any further temperature increase will spell the total demise of Tuvalu. No leader in this
room carries such a level of worry and responsibility. Just imagine you are in my shoes, what
would you do?” It was thus something of a victory for environmental advocates that the countries
of the world could find cnsensus on the lower number -- 1.5 degrees rather than 2 degrees.
A significant weak point with regard to the Paris deal was a "loss and damage" provision, which
anticipates that even with all the new undertakings intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and move to a low carbon future, there would nonetheless be unavoidable climate change
consequences. Those consequences ranged from the loss of arable land for farmers as well as soil
erosion and contamination of potable water by sea water, to the decimation of territory in coastal
zones and on small islands, due to the rise in sea level, with entire small island countries being
rendered entirely uninhabitable. The reality was that peoples' homes across the world would be
destroyed along with their way of life.
With that latter catastrophic effect being a clear and present danger for small island countries, the
Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) demanded that the developed world acknowledge its
responsibility for this irreversible damage.. Despite the fact that greenhouse gas emissions and the
ensuing plague of global warming was, indeed, the consequence of development in the West (the
United States and Europe) and the large power house countries, such as Russia, China and India,
France Review 2016
France
there was no appetite by those countries to sign on to unlimited liability. Under the Paris
Agreement, there was a call for research on insurance mechanisms that would address loss and
damage issues, with recommendations to come in the future.
The call for research was being regarded as an evasion of sorts and constituted the weakest aspect
of the Paris Agreement. Not surprisingly, a coalition of small island nations demanded a "Marshall
Plan" for the Pacific. Borrowing the term "Marshall Plan" from the post-World War II
reconstruction effort, the coalition of Pacific island nation, which included Kiribati, Tuvalu, Fiji,
and the Marshall Islands, called for an initiative that would include investment in renewable energy
and shoreline protection, cultural preservation, economic assistance for economies in transition,
and a plan for migration and resettlement for these countries as they confront the catastrophic
effects of the melting of the Polar ice caps and the concomitant rise in sea level. The precise
contours of the initiative remained unknown, unspecified, and a mere exercise in theory at the time
of writing. Yet such an initiative would, at some point, have to be addressed, given the realities of
climate change and the slow motion calamity unfolding each day for low-lying island nations across
the world.
As noted by Vice President Greg Stone of Conservation International, who also functions as an
adviser to the government of Kiribati, “Imagine living in a place where you know it’s going to go
away someday, but you don’t know what day that wave’s going to come over and wash your
home away." He added, “It’s a disaster we know is going to happen.” Meanwhile, the
intervening years promised to be filled with hardship for small island nations, such as Kiribati.
Stone explained, “For every inch of sea-level rise, these islands lose 10 feet of their freshwater
table to saltwater intrusion,” Stone explained. “So it’s not just about the day the water finally goes
over the island; it’s also about the day that there’s just not enough water left and everyone has to
move off the island.” Presaging the future for island nations that could face submersion, Stone
said, “If you look ahead 50 years, a country like Kiribati could become the first aqueous nation.
possibility of migration. That is, they own this big patch of ocean, and they administer it from
elsewhere.”
Foreign Minister Minister Tony Debrum of the Marshall Islands emerged as the champion
advocating on behalf of small island nation states and a loose coalition of concerned countries from
the Pacific to the Caribbean, but with support from the United States. He addressed the
comprehensive concerns of small island nations regarding the weaknesses of the deal, while
simultaneously making clear that the Paris Agreement signified hope for the countries most at risk.
In a formal statement, Debrum declared: "We have made history today. Emissions targets are still
way off track, but this agreement has the tools to ramp up ambition, and brings a spirit of hope that
we can rise to this challenge. I can go back home to my people and say we now have a pathway to
survival.” Debrum highlighted the imperatives of Pacific island nations, saying, “Our High
Ambition Coalition was the lightning rod we needed to lift our sights and expectations for a strong
agreement here in Paris. We were joined by countries representing more than half the world. We
France Review 2016
France
said loud and clear that a bare-bones, minimalist agreement would not fly. We instead demanded an
agreement to mark a turning point in history, and the beginning of our journey to the post-carbon
era.”
Debrum of the Marshall Islands espoused the quintessential synopsis of the accord and its effects
for those most likely to be affected by climate change as he noted, “Climate change won’t stop
overnight, and my country is not out of the firing line just yet, but today we all feel a little safer.”
Editor's Entry on Environmental Policy:
The low-lying Pacific island nations of the world, including Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands,
Fiji, among others, are vulnerable to the threats posed by global warming and cimate change,
derived from carbon emissions, and resulting in the rise in sea level. Other island nations in the
Caribbean, as well as poor countries with coastal zones, were also at particular risk of suffering the
deleterious effects of climate change.
Political policy in these countries are often connected to ecological issues, which have over time
morphed into an existential crisis of sorts. Indeed, ecological concerns and the climate crisis have
also been dominant themes with life and death consequences for the people of island nations in the
Pacific. Indeed, the very livelihoods of fishing and subsistence farming remain at risk as a result of
ecological and environmental changes. Yet even so, these countries are threatened by increasingly
high storm surges, which could wipe out entire villages and contaminate water supplies. Moreover,
because these are low lying island nations, the sustained rise in sea level can potentially lead to the
terrain of these countries being unihabitable at best, and submerged at worst. Stated in plain terms,
these countries are at severe risk of being obliterated from the map and their plight illuminates the
emerging global challenge of environmental refugees. In these manifold senses, climate change is
the existential crisis of the contemporary era.
Since the time of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, there have been efforts aimed at extending the life of
that agreement, with an eye on minimizing greenhouse gas emissions, and thus minimizing the
effects of climate change. Those endeavors have largely ended in failure, as exemplified by the
unsuccessful Copenhagen talks in 2009 and the fruitless Doha talks in 2012 respectively. The
success of the COP 21 talks in France, with the adoption of the landmark Paris Agreement in
2015, was regarded as the first glimmer of hope. Not only did the Paris Agreement signify the
triumph of international diplomacy and global consensus, but it also marked the start of the end of
the fossil fuel era, with the path forward toward a low carbon future reliant on greener
technologies. Most crucially, the Paris Agreement stood as the first significant response in recent
times to the central challenge of climate change and its quotidian effects on the lives of real human
beings across the world.
France Review 2016
France
1. Major International Environmental Accords:
General Environmental Concerns
Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Espoo, 1991.
Accords Regarding Atmosphere
Annex 16, vol. II (Environmental Protection: Aircraft Engine Emissions) to the 1044 Chicago
Convention on International Civil Aviation, Montreal, 1981
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), Geneva, 1079
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), New York, 1002
Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Vienna, 1985 including the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Depleted the Ozone Layer, Montreal, 1987
Accords Regarding Hazardous Substances
Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movements
and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa, Bamako, 1991
Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Caused during Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road,
Rail and Inland Navigation Vessels (CRTD), Geneva, 1989
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
(Basel Convention), Basel, 1989
Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, Helsinki, 1992
Convention to Ban the Importation into Forum Island Countries of Hazardous and Radioactive
Wastes and to Control the Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes
within the South Pacific Region (Waigani Convention), Waigani, 1995
European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR),
Geneva 1957
France Review 2016
France
FAO International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, Rome, 1985
2. Major International Marine Accords:
Global Conventions
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter
(London Convention 1972), London, 1972
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by
Protocol of 1978 relation thereto (MARPOL 73/78), London, 1973 and 1978
International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (1969 CLC), Brussels,
1969, 1976, and 1984
International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil
Pollution Damage 1971 (1971 Fund Convention), Brussels, 1971
Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of
Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS), London 1996
International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response, and Co-operation (OPRC),
London, 1990
International Convention Relation to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution
Casualties (Intervention Convention), Brussels, 1969
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Montego Bay, 1982
Regional Conventions
Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft (Oslo
Convention), Oslo, 1972
Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources (Paris Convention),
Paris, 1974
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (OSPAR
Convention), Paris, 1992
France Review 2016
France
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (1974 Helsinki
Convention), Helsinki 1974
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (1992 Helsinki
Convention), Helsinki 1992
Conventions within the UNEP Regional Seas Programme
Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution, Bucharest, 1992
Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider
Caribbean Region, Cartagena de Indias, 1983
Convention for the Protection, Management, and Development of the Marine and Coastal
Environment of the Eastern African Region, Nairobi, 1985
Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation on the Protection of the Marine Environment from
Pollution, Kuwait, 1978
Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment and Coastal Region of
the Mediterranean Sea (Barcelona Convention), Barcelona, 1976
Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment, Jeddah,
1982
Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific
Region, Noumea, 1986
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Area of the South-East
Pacific, Lima, 1981
Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal
Environment of the West and Central African Region, Abidjan, 1981
3. Major Conventions Regarding Living Resources:
Marine Living Resources
Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), Canberra,
France Review 2016
France
1980
International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), Rio de Janeiro, 1966
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), Washington, 1946
Nature Conservation and Terrestrial Living Resources
Antarctic Treaty, Washington, D.C., 1959
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage
Convention), Paris, 1972
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Nairobi, 1992
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), Bonn, 1979
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES),
Washington, D.C., 1973
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar
Convention), Ramsar, 1971
Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD), Paris 1994
FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, 1983
International Tropical Timber Agreement, 1994 (ITTA, 1994), Geneva, 1994
Freshwater Resources
Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes,
Helsinki, 1992
4. Major Conventions Regarding Nuclear Safety:
Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency
(Assistance Convention), Vienna, 1986
France Review 2016
France
Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident (Notification Convention), Vienna, 1986
Convention on Nuclear Safety, Vienna, 1994
Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, Vienna, 1963
5. Major Intergovernmental Organizations
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
European Union (EU): Environment
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
Global Environment Facility (GEF)
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
International Labour Organization (ILO)
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds (IOPC Funds)
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Environment Policy
Committee (EPOC)
United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
France Review 2016
France
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
World Bank
World Food Programme (WFP)
World Health Organization (WHO)
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
World Trade Organization (WTO)
6. Major Non-Governmental Organizations
Atmosphere Action Network East Asia (AANEA)
Climate Action Network (CAN)
Consumers International (CI)
Earth Council
Earthwatch Institute
Environmental Liaison Centre International (ELCI)
European Environmental Bureau (EEB)
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
Friends of the Earth International (FoEI)
Greenpeace International
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
France Review 2016
France
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
International Solar Energy Society (ISES)
IUCN-The World Conservation Union
Pesticide Action Network (PAN)
Sierra Club
Society for International Development (SID)
Third World Network (TWN)
Water Environment Federation (WEF)
Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO)
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
World Federalist Movement (WFM)
World Resources Institute (WRI)
World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF)
7. Other Networking Instruments
Arab Network for Environment and Development (RAED)
Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE)
Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC)
United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS)
France Review 2016
France
France Review 2016
France
Appendices
France Review 2016
France
Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sources: Key Data
Altapedia. URL: http://www.atlapedia.com/online/country_index.htm
Ethnologue. URL: http://www.ethnologue.com
Geobase Global Statistics. URL: http://www.geoba.se
Infoplease: URL: http://www.infoplease.com
The Statesman's Year Book 2006. Barry Turner, ed. London: St. Martin's Press.
United States D e p a r t m e n t o f S t a t e , B a c k g r o u n d N o t e s . U R L :
http://www.state.gov/www/background_notes/index.htm
United States Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook. Washington, D.C.: Printing and
Photography Group. URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
World Bank. URL: http://www.worldbank.org/
World Climate Data Online. URL: http://www.worldclimate.com
Methodology Note for Demographic Data:
The demographic numbers for cities and national populations listed in CountryWatch content are
derived from the Geoba.se website, which analyzes data from the World Bank. The current
demographic numbers displayed on the Countrywatch website are reflective of the latest available
estimates.
The demographic information for language, ethnicity and religion listed in CountryWatch content is
France Review 2016
France
derived from a mix of sources including the Altapedia, Central Intelligence Agency Factbook,
Infoplease, and State Department Background Notes.
Sources: Political Overview
Agence France Presse. URL: http://www.afp.com/en/
BBC International News. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ (Various editions and dates as
cited in particular reviews)
Britannica Book of the Year. 1998-present. David Calhoun, ed. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica,
Inc.
Britannica Online URL :http://www.eb.com
Britannica Year in Review. URL: http://www.britannica.com/browse/year
Chiefs of State and Cabinet Members of Foreign Governments. URL:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/chiefs/index.html
Christian Science Monitor. URL: http://www.csmonitor.com/ (Various editions and dates as cited
in particular reviews)
CNN International News. URL:http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/ (Various editions and dates as cited
in particular reviews)
Current Leaders of Nations. 1997. Jennifer Mossman, ed. Detroit: Gale Research
The Economist Magazine. (Various editions and dates as cited in particular reviews)
The Economist Country Briefings. URL: http://www.economist.com/countries/
Eldis Country Profiles. URL: http://www.eldis.org/country/index.htm
Elections Around the World. URL: http://www.electionworld.org/
Election Resources. URL: http://electionresources.org/
Europa World Yearbook 1999. Vols. I & II. 1999. London: Europa Publications Ltd.
France Review 2016
France
Europe World Online. URL: http://www.europaworld.com/pub/
Financial Times. URL: http://www.financialtimes.com
Foreign Government Resources. URL: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/foreign.html
Human Rights Watch. URL: http://www.hrw.org
IFES Election Guide. URL: http://www.electionguide.org
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. URL: http://www.idea.int/
International Who's Who 1997-1998, 61st Edition. 1997. London: Europa Publications Ltd.
L e a d e r s h i p V i e w s , C h i e f s o f
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/chiefs/index.html
S t a t e
O n l i n e .
U R L
:
Library of Congress Country Studies. URL: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html
New Encyclopedia Britannica. 1998. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.
New York Times. URL: http://www.nytimes.com (Various editions and dates as cited in
particular reviews)
Patterns of Global Terrorism. n.d. United States Department of State. Washington D.C.: United
States Department of State Publications.
Political Handbook of the World. n.d. Arthur S. Banks, Thomas C. Muller, ed. Binghamton, New
York: CSA Publications.
Political Reference Almanac Online. URL: http://www.polisci.com/almanac/nations.htm
Reuters News. URL: http://www.reuters.com/
Rulers. URL: http://rulers.org/
The Guardian Online. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
particular reviews)
(Various editions and dates as cited in
The Statesman's Year-Book 2006. Barry Turner, ed. London: St. Martin's Press.
France Review 2016
France
United Nations Development Programme. URL: http://hdr.undp.org
United Nations Refugee Agency. URL: http://www.unhcr.org
United States Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook.Washington, D.C.: Printing and
United States Department of State, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers (WMEAT)
URL : http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/bureau_ac/reports_ac.html
United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. URL:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18245.htm
http://www.state.gov/www/background_notes/index.html
Virtual Library: International Relations Resources. URL: http://www.etown.edu/vl/countgen.html
World Bank: Governance Indicators. URL: http://info.worldbank.org/governance
-- See also list of News Wires services below, which are also used for research purposes. -Note on Edition Dates:
The earlier edition dates are noted above because they were used to formulate the original Country
Reviews and serve as the baseline for some of the information covered. Later editions have been
used in some cases, and are cited as such, while other more recent online resources (cited above)
contain recent and ever-updated data sets used for research.
Sources: Economic Overview
BP Statistical Review of World Energy. URL: http://www.bp.com/genericsection.do?
categoryId=92&contentId=7005893
BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 1998. 1998 to present. Page 1.C. London: The
British Petroleum Company.
International Monetary Fund, Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook. Washington, D.C.:
International Monetary Fund Publication Services.
France Review 2016
France
International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics. 1998 to present. Washington,
D.C.: International Monetary Fund Publication Services.
International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics Yearbook. 1999 to present.
Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund Publication Services.
International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook, May 1999. 1999 to present. Washington,
D.C.: International Monetary Fund Publication Services.
International Labour Office, World Employment Report, 1998-99. 1998 to present. Geneva:
International Labour Office.
United Nations Statistical Division Online. URL: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/default.htm
United Nations Statistics Division, Monthly Bulletin of Statistics (MBS On Line), November 1999
Edition. 1999 to present. New York: United Nations.
United Nations, Statistical Yearbook, 43rd Issue. 1999. 1999 to present New York: United Nations.
United Nations, Food & Agricultural Organization, FAOSTAT Database. URL : http://apps.fao.org/
United Nations, Comtrade Data Base, http://comtrade.un.org/
United States Department of Energy, Country Analysis Briefs.
URL:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/contents.html
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Database
United States Geological Service, Mineral Information
United States Department of State, Country Commercial Guides. Washington, D.C. United States
of America. URL:http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/business/com_guides/index.html
The World Bank, Global Development Finance, Country Tables. 1999 to present. Washington,
D.C.: The World Bank.
The World Bank Group, World Development Indicators. 1999 to present. Washington, D.C.: The
World Bank.
Yearbook of Tourism Statistics, World Tourism Organization. 1998 to present. Madrid: The World
Tourism Organization.
France Review 2016
France
The earlier edition dates are noted above because they were used to formulate the original country
reviews and serve as the baseline for some of the information covered. Later editions have been
Methodology Notes for Economic Data:
Estimates by CountryWatch.com of GDP in dollars in most countries are made by converting local
currency GDP data from the International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook to US dollars
by market exchange rates estimated from the International Monetary Fund International Financial
Statistics and projected out by the CountryWatch Macroeconomic Forecast. Real GDP was
estimated by deflating current dollar values by the US GDP Implicit Price Deflator.
Exceptions to this method were used for:
• Bosnia-Herzegovina
• Nauru
• Cuba
• Palau
• Holy See
• San Marino
• Korea, North
• Serbia & Montenegro
• Liberia
• Somalia
• Liechtenstein
• Tonga
• Monaco
• Tuvalu
In these cases, other data and/or estimates by CountryWatch.com were utilized.
Investment Overview
C o r r u p t i o n a n d T r a n s p a r e n c y
http://www.transparency.org/documents/cpi/2001/cpi2001.html#cpi
<http://www.transparency.org/documents/
I n d e x .
U R L :
Deloitte Tax Guides. URL: http://www.deloittetaxguides.com
France Review 2016
France
Trade Policy Reviews by the World Trade Organization .
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp_rep_e.htm#bycountry
URL:
United States Department of Energy, Country Analysis Briefs. URL:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/contents.html
United States Department of State, Country Commercial Guides. 1996-2006. Washington, D.C.
U n i t e d S t a t e s
o f
A m e r i c a .
U R L :
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/business/com_guides/index.html
World Bank: Doing Business. URL: http://www.doingbusiness.org
World Bank: Governance Indicators. URL: http://info.worldbank.org/governance
Social Overview
Borden, G.A., Conaway, W.A., Morrison, T. 1994. Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands: How to do
Business in Sixty Countries. Holbrook, Massachusetts, 1994.
Center for Disease Control. URL: http://www.cdc.gov
Eldis Country Profiles. URL: http://www.eldis.org/country/index.htm
Ethnologue. URL: http://www.ethnologue.com/
Government of Australia D e p a r t m e n t o f F o r e i g n A f f i a r s a n d T r a d e . U R L :
http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo
Government of
Canada F o r e i g n A f f a i r s a n d I n t e r n a t i o n a l T r a d e . U R L :
http://www.voyage.gc.ca/consular_home-e.htm
Library of Congress Country Studies. URL: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html
Lonely Planet. URL: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/
Steve Kropla's Online Help For World Travelers. URL: http://www.kropla.com/
France Review 2016
France
United Kingdom Ministry of Foreign and Commonwealth Office. URL: http://www.fco.gov.uk/
United Nations Human Development Report. URL: http://www.undp.org/hdro
UNICEF Statistical Database Online. URL: http://www.unicef.org/statis/atoz.html
United States Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook. 2001. Washington, D.C.: Printing and
United States Department of State, Background Notes. URL:
United States Department of State, Commercial and Business Affairs: Travel Tips. URL:
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/business/cba_travel.html
United States Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs. URL: http://travel.state.gov/
World Health Organization. URL: http://www.who.int/home-page/
World News Connection, National Technical Information Service. Springfield, Virginia, USA.
Internet News Service, Xinhua News Agency (U.S.) Inc. Woodside, New York. URL:
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/
Methodology Notes for the HDI:
Since 1990, the United Nations Development Programme, in concert with organizations across the
globe, has produced the Human Development Index (or HDI). According to the UNDP, the index
measures average achievement in basic human development in one simple composite index, and
produces from this index a ranking of countries. The HDI is a composite of three basic
components of human development: longevity, knowledge and standard of living. Longevity is
measured by life expectancy. Knowledge is measured by combination of adult literacy and mean
France Review 2016
France
years of schooling. Standard of living is measured by purchasing power, based on real GDP per
capita (in constant US$) adjusted for differences in international living costs (or, purchasing power
parity, PPP). While the index uses these social indicators to measure national performance with
regard to human welfare and development, not all countries provide the same level of information
for each component needed to compute the index; therefore, as in any composite indicator, the
final index is predicated on projections, predictions and weighting schemes. The index is a static
measure, and thus, an incomplete measure of human welfare. In fact, the UNDP says itself the
concept of human development focuses on the ends rather than the means of development and
progress, examining in this manner, the average condition of all people in a given country.
Specifically, the index is calculated by determining the maximum and minimum for each of the
three components (as listed above) and then measuring where each country stands in relation to
these scales-expressed as a value between 0 and 1. For example, the minimum adult literary rate is
zero percent, the maximum is 100 percent, and the reading skills component of knowledge in the
HDI for a country where the literacy rate is 75 percent would be 0.75. The scores of all indicators
are then averaged into the overall index.
For a more extensive examination of human development, as well as the ranking tables for each
participating country, please visit: http://www.undp.org
Note on History sections
In some CountryWatch Country Reviews, open source content from the State Department
Background Notes and Country Guides have been used.
Environmental Profiles: A Global Guide to Projects and People. 1993. Linda Sobel Katz, Sarah
Orrick, and Robert Honig. New York: Garland Publishing.
The Environment Encyclopedia and Directory, 2nd Edition. 1998. London: Europa.
Environmental Protection Agency Global Warming Site. URL: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming
Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations: Forestry. URL:
http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/sofo/en/
Global Warming Information Page. URL: http://globalwarming.org
Introduction to Global Environmental Issues, 2nd Edition. 1997. Kevin Pickering and Lewis Owen.
France Review 2016
France
London: Routledge.
Trends: Compendium of Data on Global Change.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm
U n i t e d N a t i o n s E n v i r o n m e n t a l
http://www.unep.org/GEO/GEO_Products/Assessment_Reports/
P r o g r a m .
URL:
U R L :
United Nations Global Environmental Outlook. URL: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/
United States Department of Energy, Country Analysis Briefs. URL:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/contents.html
World Climate Data Online. URL: http://www.worldclimate.com
World Directory of Country Environmental Studies. 1996. The World Resource Institute.
World Factbook. US Central Intelligence Agency. Washington, D.C.: Printing and Photography
Group.
1998-1999 World Resources Guide to the Global Environment by the World Resources Institute.
May, 1998.
1998/1999 Yearbook of International Cooperation on Environment and Development. 1998.
London: Earthscan Publications.
Other Sources:
General information has also been used in the compilation of this review, with the courtesy of
governmental agencies from this country.
News Services:
France Review 2016
France
CANA Daily Bulletin. Caribbean Media Agency Ltd., St. Michael, Barbados.
Central and Eastern Africa Report, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs - Integrated Regional Information Network for Central and Eastern Africa.
Daily News, Panafrican News Agency. Dakar, Senegal.
PACNEWS, Pacific Islands Broadcasting Association. Suva, Fiji.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Washington D.C. USA.
Reuters News. Thomson Reuters. New York, New York. USA.
Southern Africa Report, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Integrated Regional Information Network for Southern Africa.
Voice of America, English Service. Washington D.C.
West Africa Report, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Integrated Regional Information Network for West Africa. 1998-1999
Note: Some or all these news services have been used to research various sections of this Country
Review.
USING COUNTRYWATCH.COM AS AN ELECTRONIC SOURCE:
MLA STYLE OF CITATION
Commentary
For items in a "Works Cited" list, CountryWatch.com suggests that users follow recommended
patterns forindentation given in the MLA Handbook, 4th edition.
Individual Works
Basic form, using an Internet protocol:
France Review 2016
France
Author/editor. Title of Print Version of Work. Edition statement (if given). Publication information
(Place of publication: publisher, date), if given. Title of Electronic Work. Medium. Available
Protocol (if applicable):Site/Path/File. Access date.
Examples:
Youngblood-Coleman, Denise. Country Review: France. 2003. Houston, Texas: CountryWatch
Publications, 2003.
C o u n t r y R e v i e w : F r a n c e. O n l i n e . A v a i l a b l e U R L :
http://www.countrywatch.com/cw_country.asp?vCOUNTRY=61 October, 12, 2003.
Note:
This is the citation format used when the print version is not used in the reference.
Parts of Works
Basic form, using an Internet protocol:
Author/editor. "Part title." Title of Print Version of Work. Edition statement (if given). Publication
information (Place of publication: publisher, date), if given. Title of Electronic Work. Medium.
AvailableProtocol (if applicable): Site/Path/File. Access date.
Examples:
Youngblood-Coleman, Denise. "People." CountryWatch.com: France. 2003. Houston, Texas:
CountryWatch Publications, 2003. CountryWatch.com: France. Online. Available URL :
http://www.countrywatch.com/cw_topic.asp?
vCOUNTRY=61&SECTION=SOCIAL&TOPIC=CLPEO&TYPE=TEXT. October 12, 2003.
Note:
This is the citation format used when the print version is not used in the reference.
For further source citation information, please email: [email protected] or
[email protected].
France Review 2016
CountryWatch
CountryWatch is an information provider for public and private sector organizations that operate globally.
The management of CountryWatch has extensive international experience and has utilized this experience to
provide a concise and useful set of political, economic, and business information for its clients in the form
of Country Reviews, the Country Wire, CountryWatch Data, Elections Central, CountryWatch Videos and
CountryWatch Forecast.
This Country Review is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information on the subject matter
covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publication is not intended to provide legal, accounting,
investment, or other professional advice.
CountryWatch believes that the information and opinions contained here in are reliable, but does not make
any warranties, express or implied, and assumes no liability for reliance on or use of the information or
opinions contained herein.
The offices of CountryWatch are located at:
CountryWatch, Inc.
5005 Riverway Suite 220
Houston, Texas 77056 U.S.A.
Tel: 800-879-3885
Fax: 713-355-3770
Web address: http://www.countrywatch.com
Email: [email protected]
ISBN: 1- 60523- 676-4
ISSN: 1- 60523- 893-5
Printed in the United States of America
France Country Review
2016

France - Country Watch

Transcription

Similar documents

Awana Upcoming Events - Faith Baptist Church

I`m helping to end MS by participating in the 2016 Jayman BUILT MS

The Board of Directors of Qatar Fuel (WOQOD) is pleased to invite

5 `S` Training Program at ABV-IIITM, Gwalior on 21.07.2016

Porky Expo Flyer

The NeuLion Report

Sept 30-Oct 2, 2016 Nov 4-6, 2016 @Camp Tadmor

4 star ALOE HOTEL, PAPHOS

the Guidelines for the registration on

Ticket plus hotel packages for the Chelsea Flower Show 2016