WEEKLY MEDIA WRAP-UP: CHIRAC's IRAN-GAFFE, IPCC CONFERENCE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 000422 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR/PPD, EUR/WE, INR, R E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: OPRC PREL KPAO FR SUBJECT: WEEKLY MEDIA WRAP-UP: CHIRAC's IRAN-GAFFE, IPCC CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE, FRANCE'S ECONOMIC ATTRACTIVENESS -- FEBRUARY 02, PARIS 00000422 001.2 OF 003 ¶2007. Sensitive but unclassified. Please protect accordingly. -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) Left-of-center weekly Le Nouvel Observateur devoted its cover story to climate change with an interview of President Chirac, which the magazine characterized as "The President's Legacy for the Environment." In this interview the French President stated: "I want the U.S. to adopt Kyoto and post-Kyoto." The U.S. position on the environment was broadly discussed throughout the week, with right-of-center Le Figaro noting on Thursday that "little by little America's obstacles regarding climate change were being lifted." Iran's stance on nuclear weapons, FM Douste-Blazy's comment about "a unified international community to deal with Tehran" and President Chirac's surprising gaffe in an interview with the IHT, the NYT and Le Nouvel Observateur minimizing the "dangerousness" of Iran, "were it to possess one or two nuclear weapons," fueled a heated controversy towards the end of the week. France's economic attractiveness was debated at the start of the week in connection with the government's yearly Strategic Economic Attractiveness Council which was launched in 2003. End Summary. -------------- IRAN'S NUCLEAR GAMBIT AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Ambassador Stapleton stated in a tour d'horizon interview that appeared Saturday in right-of-center Le Parisien that a "military intervention in Iran would be the worst possible solution" but that the aircraft carrier sent to the Gulf was a "message to the government to show that the U.S. was committed to security in that part of the world." Philippe Gelie in an op-ed in right-of-center Le Figaro asked: "Is America Getting Ready to Attack Ahmadinejad's Iran?" Gelie argued that since President Bush's "harsher stance" towards Iran on January 10, "not a day went by without an official spokesperson taking the opportunity to deny the President's bellicose intentions." Gelie further argued that the denials from Tony Snow and Dana Perino "had done more to feed speculation than to stop it." Gelie contended that Washington, "by adopting a harsher line and appearing more threatening, wanted to show Iran where the balance of power stood in the region;" Gelie quoted Robert Gates: "as long as Iran refuses to understand that the U.S. is a daunting adversary, there is no point in talking." Gelie concluded that while "an operation against Iran would carry astronomical costs... nothing proved that a firm decision had been made." In right-of-center Le Journal du Dimanche, Karen Lajon agreed that "pressure was mounting on Iran" and that "while President Bush was getting tougher, Teheran's leaders were at each other's throat, with the Iranian people disbelieving that a war was imminent." In an interview in right-of-center Le Figaro, Iranian sociologist Amir Ebrahimi stated that "the personalities of the two presidents [Bush and Amadinejad] gave credence to the possibility of a confrontation." ¶3. (SBU) FM Douste-Blazy who penned an op-ed in left-of-center Le Monde on the "timeliness for France to encourage negotiations in the Middle East" also warned regarding Iran that, "much would depend on the international community's ability to remain united, which was its only leverage to help convince Tehran to make the right choices." The Foreign Minister intimated that "recent developments could prompt Teheran to reflect" and that "the ball was in Iran's court." But he also argued that "the only viable solution was the one supported by France." Jack Lang and Louis Gautier of the Socialist Party penned a joint op-ed in left-wing Liberation entitled "For a Just International Order" in which they stated that, "Iran's controlled access to commercial nuclear technology could be considered as long the Iranian regime agreed to definitively give up any plans to acquire nuclear weapons." ¶4. (SBU) On Thursday a controversy erupted over President Chirac's comments, which he later recanted alleging that he thought he was speaking "off the record," on Iran during an interview earlier in the week. In left-of-center weekly Le Nouvel Observateur Guillaume Malaurie entitled his column "Iran: When Chirac Retracts Chirac." Malaurie contended that "while to date President Chirac had preached in favor of a dialogue with Iran, he had recently adopted a harsher tone, supposedly under pressure from the U.S." Malaurie also noted that President Chirac first minimized the "dangerousness" of Iran, "were it to possess one or two nuclear weapons," because "it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran," but later retracted his statement in a second interview, recognizing "he was wrong." Left-of-center Le Monde in its mid-day Thursday electronic edition headlined that "President Chirac was hard-pressed to define a stance PARIS 00000422 002.2 OF 003 ¶2007. towards Iran" and that his comments "went against France's official position." The editorial entitled "Diplomatic Shift" also outlined in the electronic early Le Monde edition noted that "President Chirac's remarks would once again leave France's partners rudderless" and that they "confirmed France's diplomatic shift on the Iranian nuclear crisis." The paper edition of Le Monde dated Friday entitled its editorial "A Radical Shift" and concluded that "these remarks were a radical shift in France's policy, more so than the aborted trip to Tehran of FM Douste-Blazy, intervening at the worst possible moment." ¶5. (SBU) On Friday all media outlets commented on the fallout of what left-wing Liberation's front page headlined, "Chirac's Irangaffe." In right-of-center Le Figaro, Alain Barluet underscored the Elysee Palace's attack on the U.S. press, accused of "interpreting the remarks in such a way as to trigger a shameful controversy. Such an attitude does not surprise us coming from certain U.S. media, always quick to use anything they can against France." However, Barluet saluted Washington "for taking great pains to avoid adding oil to the fire." Europe-1 Radio's Washington correspondent Francois Clemenceau reported on the revised transcript and the statement from the Elysee Palace faulting the American media, and noted the low-key USG official position expressed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack yesterday: "the French Government has officially revised and extended President Chirac's remarks...we all have the right to a 'mulligan' now and then..." Editorialist Dominique Jamet in right-of-center France Soir was most critical of the accusations made by the Elysee against the U.S. press: "The French President did not realize he was dealing with U.S. media, which differs from French journalists who remain respectful and ready to be accomplices. The U.S. press did not hesitate to reveal the story, leading the Elysee Palace to put out an angry press release denouncing the 'shameful controversy' triggered by the U.S. media against France. The fact is that with one fell swoop the American journalists managed to question the French media's complacency, the [French] President's abilities with regard to his age, and shed light on [French] Presidential lies. In short they were simply doing their job. What a shame indeed!" -------------- IPCC CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Climate change and the Intergovernmental Panel conference in Paris elicited numerous commentaries on France's presidential candidates signing off on the ecological pact and on a "noticeable shift" in the U.S. government's attitude toward global warming. Catholic daily La Croix on Thursday ran Ambassador Stapleton's op-ed on U.S. climate change policy. In right-of-center Le Figaro, Gaetan de Capele commented that "President Bush himself, traditionally hermetically closed to the issue, was acknowledging the reality of the situation." Regional daily l'Alsace editorialist Patrick Fluckiger agreed: "Everyone is talking about global warming, even George Bush!" In regional La Nouvelle Republique du Centre, Herve Cannet reiterated that "public opinions were finally regarding climate change as vital. Even the Bush administration, which refused to sign the Kyoto protocol, was now obligated to make a few promises." In left-of-center weekly Le Nouvel Observateur Philippe Boulet-Gercourt noted that "finally, the U.S. was waking to the problem: from multinationals to Congress, from the religious right to local governments, America was warming to global warming." ¶7. (SBU) Right-of-center La Tribune, in a less optimistic editorial argued that "indeed, President Bush was no longer denying global warming, but that he continued to reject the Kyoto Protocol." However the editorial further acknowledged that "President Bush was wagering on technological innovation and alternative energy sources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Michel Vagner in regional L'Est Republicain praised the IPCC in his editorial: "The fact that 500 scientists from 130 countries might reach an agreement on the state of the climate and what to do about it would be a victory. This would allow for greater general awareness." For left-of-center Le Monde, "the IPCC was pushing decision-makers to act." -------------- FRANCE'S ECONOMIC ATTRACTIVENESS -------------- ¶8. (SBU) The economic section of right-of-center Le Figaro headlined "Foreign CEOs Happy in France Despite Everything" although "foreign investors were both seduced by and annoyed with France." In an interview, Francis Bailly, who is the President of the American Chamber of Commerce and General Electric Europe executive, praised France, "where GE had found a portfolio of activities which mirrored GE's." But Bailly, as the President of the AmCham, also decried PARIS 00000422 003.2 OF 003 ¶2007. "the image of France and the 35-hour workweek, despite recent attempts at flexibility, as the refection of a country that was unable to adapt to economic and demographic realities." In his editorial in right-of-center Le Figaro, Nicholas Barre warned that "while France could indeed be attractive, the rest of the world was even more so." Barre also pointed to the reality of certain figures put forward by the government, which included real estate investments, and argued that "in the end, the investments which boosted productivity were but a fraction of those figures." Barre concluded that realistically, foreign investors were asking France to "simplify its complicated set of legislation and regulations" and warned that "if France did not comply, investors would go elsewhere." Catholic La Croix quoted an Ernst and Young spokesman who agreed: "France's traditional advantages are becoming run-of-the-mill, whereas its handicaps in terms of financial criteria are shifting the balance in favor of its competitors." STAPLETON