It was quite shocking to see the way in which certain countries, beginning with Great Britain, questioned the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as well as the indulgence of specific commentators who caricatured it. According to them, the CAP has not evolved since the Treaty of Rome. Why such aversion to this policy when it is quite accepted in the United States? When we blame ourselves, the Americans use food as a weapon! Why should we abandon a policy that made as the second exporter of non processed agricultural products in the world and the first of the processed ones? By attacking this policy of the “old Europe”, Tony Blair is acting against Europe.
The European agriculture is an advantage for the European Union. Tony Blair falsifies the figures of such policy to make people believe 40% of the European expenditure is devoted to it. But, they are necessary. More than 10% of the jobs of the European Union and about 20% of the jobs of the private sector in France depend on these expenditures in the agri-food sector. In addition, 450 million Europeans benefit from them for they have access to quality food products at good prices. The President of the Republic is right in pointing out that the CAP is modern. It is modern for the relations it has established with developing countries which have a privileged access to the European market. This contradicts the propaganda that says Europe and the PAC destroy the poor countries’ agriculture. Europe is being blamed for the destabilization of the agricultural markets of the developing countries but, who has noticed that the products which determine the incomes of the farmers of these countries are cotton, rice, peanut, coffee or cocoa, almost inexistent crops in Europe? Finally, during the negotiations that took place at the WTO, the European Union was the only one in proposing changes in favor of the poorer countries. Besides, Jacques Chirac proposed, along with President Lula from Brazil, an international tax to finance development. It was also him who began the establishment of the Foundation for World Agriculture (FARM).
France supports the CAP. It is not alone and it was thanks to it that a limit for European agricultural expenditures was set. We would like to urge those who pretend to lecture us to be modest. Europe has paid for the English mistakes in agriculture and food security. The two most important health crisis we have had in the last years (the “mad cows” and the Food-and-Mouth disease) came from Great Britain. We are still paying several billions of euros. The English have always attacked the PAC but it is them who get the best checks. On our side, we don’t think because farmers voted “no” in the referendum they must be “abandoned.”

Yesterday’s Tony Blair speech at the European Parliament showed he is still one of the best communicators of our time. There was not even a single paragraph I disagreed with. What Blair did was a presentation of the social advances the New Labor has achieved since he got power. By doing it, he lashed the caricatures of the British government that present it as a government which in the name of the market harm the haves- not.
However, it is surprising people are not aware of the social aspect of the Labor’s policy. But Blair hardly mentions it. It would very helpful for the British presidency at the European Union if the Prime Minister insist more on it. Besides, no European parliamentarian interested on social justice opposes Tony Blair vision on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), a policy that benefits few people in Europe and destroys the African economies. Not even the very same French Socialist Party is willing to defend the CAP in its present form.
Nevertheless, the British team has not been able to get a consensus on this issue and create a coalition to address it. Our isolation in Europe prevents us from influencing the European Union and fosters Euro-skepticism in our country.

If the European people were asked to remove trade subsidies, to cut down the cost of their weekly shopping, and to help poor countries, they all would agree. Let’s recall that it is not only money what agricultural subsidies cost. They also cost human lives.
What can the Commonwealth do? We have to use our influence network to support the Doha development agenda. The Commonwealth is also working on the creation of a financial aid system for private companies in small states. This will help people who risk their lives for the least evolution that can be brought about by a market change in consumers’ tastes. We’ll also help producers to export and diversify their production. We’ll additionally help small states to recruit educators and physicians worldwide while their own personnel is being trained.

The stunning failure of the Brussels Summit is the sign that the Europe of “No” has begun. Tony Blair thought he could negotiate the cease of the British discount vs. the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), reducing the latter to its simple competitive aspect. Jacques Chirac’s opposition as well as that of the new member countries wrecked Blair’s maneuver. If the European Constitution Treaty (ECT) had been adopted, CPA’s decisions as from November 2006 would have been made by mutual agreement with the Parliament, which could have reoriented it. I was then in Lima, working with our Latin-American colleagues, who felt deeply disappointed by the ECT failure. For them, the miscarriage of the creation of a political Europe meant the unlikelihood of a multi-polar world.
To prevent Europe from getting bogged down, an analysis must be carried out to see what caused the “yes” failure, which principally results from the antisocial policies applied at European and national levels. Other electors rejected the European construction as such. This rejection has taken an nationalist, absolutist and xenophobic direction. That “no” must be fought by all pro-European progressives. That “no” exasperates me because it condemns us to impotence. It breaks up the French-German friendship, affects Spanish left-wing voters. Yet, the anti-liberal component of the vote must be taken into account, and not let ourselves be driven by discontent.
I regret the lack of initiative of the “no” supporters. Within a year now, those who followed them will only be able to corroborate the absence of renegotiations. Probably we’ll still be clinging on to Maastricht and the Nice Treaty. A long time (years) will elapse before a new text should emerge. Shall we ratify it? Currently, they at the Commission and at the City of London want to remove chapter II and III and reinsert some “useful” parts from chapter I. This way, liberals would have their own constitution. However, the risk of undoing the Union’s lace shouldn’t be ruled out. The disappearance of the French-German motor, the increase of tensions around the European budget, the Polish bitterness for feeling offended by the “no” supporters’ speech would generate a gradual dismantling of the Union. In the face of this triple threat, the European Parliament must contribute its help. Though the death of the Constitution should deprive the Parliament from this initiative right, the parliament can, however, help Europe to come out of its crises by designing a project that can be adopted by all European nations.

On May 29, 2005, the French rejected the European Constitution Treaty (ECT) through a referendum. Three days later they were followed by the Dutch. Ever since, the international press hasn’t stopped talking about the future of Europe as an image and an institution, but the consequences of this voting decision can be extremely ambiguous.
Let’s analyze the French vote. Three groups are happy with the result: U.S. neo-cons, a large part of the French left-wing (principally the alterworldists) and the right-wing Euro-skeptics. For the U.S. neo-cons, the French “no” is a “no” to the arrogant anti-American European elites and to Jacques Chirac. For the alterworldists, it is the failure of a project imbued with Anglo-Saxon conservatism values imposed by the European Commission. For the Euro-skeptics, it also symbolizes a defeat of the European Commission, but for them it embodies socialism. It is additionally a refusal to Turkey’s entrance in the EU.
Evidently, as happens in each referendum, the "no" comprises various positions. If it won this time, it was due to the increasing fear of globalization on the part of the socialist and Green electorate in France and the fear of Muslim immigration to the Netherlands. This Treaty has died out, but this does not mean that the EU has done too. The EU will continue to be as it is today. Regrettably, many consider that its current functioning is not the best one. But a long time (years) will have to go by before the emergence of a new Treaty.
Tony Blair may be happy, because he did not have to organize a referendum in his country and because France has become weaker. The Bush administration, just as William Kristol, is pleased to see a divided Europe. Alterworldists gain ground and that destabilizes the left-wing parties which have little chance to win in 2007. Alterworldists will only be able to impose their points of view if they divert from the xenophobes with whom they voted, and if the Bush administration does not capitalize that voting. There cannot be a more social Europe without a more federal Europe. However, part of the left-wing fears lest federalism should only give rise to questioning the social achievements.

I refuse to say that Russia is repeatedly experiencing failures within CIS. The role of the United States has to be properly understood in the “colored” revolutions. The picture is contradictory. First it is said that that the Americans like Chevarnadze, Akayev and Kuchma. Shortly thereafter, our political scientists said they have been overthrown by the Americans. It is not just like that. When they see that their pupil is having difficulties, they establish links with the opposition. By acting like this, they ensure that future developments take place according to their expectations and prevent anyone from taking power. We are too honest in these matters and such naivety in the political arena does not lead to good results. We believe that having relations with the opposition would be a breach of the agreement that unite us with the associates to power. I hope that our policy changes.
It is not entirely accurate to say that the Americans set up the uprising in Andizhan. The Americans do not consider that Karimov is finished. Since April, they have been interested in the contacts with different Islamic radical organizations. The fact is that without contacts with the moderates it is impossible to beat the radical terrorist movements. I do not think, however, that they are making the right decision by contacting, for example, the Muslim Brothers. I think this organization is sympathetic with al-Qaeda and also recommends taking power through unconstitutional means. This will have an impact on the rest of the countries and would facilitate violence against some organizations which are not considered terrorists. We should not forget that still it takes a lot to put an end to the fight against the Talibans. Neither it is accurate to exclusively accuse Karimov in this story. The economic situation has been always difficult in Fergana valley and the Islamic extremism is very strong. Today, the extremists are the only choice for the acting President. To go against them is to leave the room free for them. We have to prevent international terrorism from operating according to the communicating vessels. After the difficulties faced in Afghanistan, they found a new parade ground in Iraq. It is very important that the terrorists do not settle down in Central Asia.
Ukraine has ascertained to join Europe due to tactical reasons with regard to Russia. If the accession issue is put forward, it would be inevitable then the opposition between two parts of the country. It would not be violent, but this is well understood in Kiev. Yeltsin and the presidents of all NATO countries signed an agreement in Paris under which it is impossible to place nuclear weapons in the new member countries or place in such countries troops from old members. It was known in the West that there was a red line that should not be outflanked since we would be obliged then to adopt measures that might lead to confrontation. This line is that of the former USSR republics which were not accepted within NATO. It is not written anywhere but Christopher and Albright knew it very well and are very careful about excluding publicly the eventual accession of those countries to NATO, but they have assured otherwise. Ukraine accession to NATO is against our interests but if the alliance becomes more political and less military, our relation with the organization could improve.
Ukraine and other countries, which consider that becoming NATO members is just a prelude to the accession to the EU, should learn the lessons of the failure of the referendum. One of those reasons was the fear over an endless expansion and its economic impact. Previously, most of the countries in Europe were economically strong but more fragile countries became members and the old ones began to wonder if it was beneficial to feed them. The most important thing for those countries, like Ukraine and Georgia, is to understand that it is advisable to develop ties with Europe, but not to the detriment of the relations with Russia. Ukraine proposed to Russia a free trade area, but Russia strives for a free trade area and later a single economic entity. We should be aware that if this process is interrupted in the first stage, there will be huge losses for us.
It is very important to unite with Belarus; to get separated would be a big geopolitical mistake for Russia. I think it is possible to deal with Lukachenko. Currently, the average pension for retirement is higher in Belarus than in Russia, and this is under isolating conditions with regard to the West! The people support their president regardless of what it is said and I think the country will never direct itself towards the West.
The withdrawal of Russian bases from Georgia does not affect our interests; the strategic interest of those bases was insignificant. I believe the Americans will not establish any base there, and no clues in this regard have been detected. The relations with Russia would be severely affected. We have never refused to recognize the territorial integrity of Georgia. Georgia and Abkhazia should exclude from their constitutions everything that contradicts the agreement of January 1st, 1999, which never got to be signed, but recognized the existence of Abkhazia within the Republic of Georgia, which is in fact the recognition of the territorial integrity of Georgia. The opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline truly affected our national interests. For the moment, there is enough oil for both pipelines, this one and Novorosisk. The BTC was built for political reasons since it is cheaper to transport crude oil through Novorosisk. The construction of the Burgas-Alexandropolis oil pipeline is not the equivalent answer, but still it is an answer. There will not be an orange revolution in Kazakhstan, the people are living well. In Azerbaijan, the Americans have already started to look for the replacement of Aliev. It is truly a pity; he is the Head of a powerful and competent State. I have read that the Americans have given 43 million dollars for democracy in Russia. It is nonsense. It is not the government’s fault if the SPS is not represented in the assembly; the people were not happy about them. It would take a lot of time for a real civilized market to exist in Russia. In all cases, the future of the country should be linked to the center right wing, not right wing. The government is not obliged to control the production means but it has to be actively involved in the economy. The investments only meet the interests in a short term. There are no long term investments. The government should be criticized for that since it lacks of a policy in this regard.

The recent developments in Uzbekistan, in which a lot of people died, were not, as interpreted by a great number of organizations and Western governments, a battle for human rights, a battle of the good against the bad. This uprising was organized by fundamentalists who claim to be an innocent political organization in order to receive support from the West.
During my trip to Uzbekistan I met with the Uzbek military chiefs and learned a lot about the true nature of Hizb al-Tahir, organization founded in Eastern Jerusalem more than 50 years ago by members of the Muslim Brothers. It is a Jihad group, barely different from what bin Laden does. It is responsible for several attacks against the Uzbek government and American and Israeli embassies. However, the Western countries and particularly the European countries have asked president Karimov to fight those terrorists with kid gloves.
It is naive to believe that it is about a fight for human rights. Hizb al-Tahir chose Uzbekistan as the training area to achieve its objectives. We have seen what the development of Islamic regimes can cause to neighboring countries, in Iran and Afghanistan. The Islamic Iranians call themselves the advocates of human rights and the Talibans as anti-Soviet combatants. Once in power they have always opposed the West. Today, the leaders of the Hizb al-Tahir have search for shelter in London and Paris, and they receive the assistance of Pakistani activists.
The United States and Israel should understand that Uzbekistan is a wall against the development of Islamism and it is necessary to assist Karimov.