Giscard: The Aesthetic of Action

Throughout his election campaign last spring, Valery Giscard d'Estaing repeatedly said that he hoped to bring a more relaxed style to the French presidency. During an hour-long interview at the Elysee Palace last week with Time Inc. Editor in Chief Hedley Donovan, Chief European Correspondent William Rademaekers and Correspondent George Taber, Giscard seemed to be fulfilling his campaign promise. He leaned back comfortably on a silk-covered sofa in his elegant Louis XVI-style office and spoke freely on matters of both style and substance. Excerpts:

Q. What are your hopes for France?

A. My idea is to create, to organize a model, or potential model, of a liberal advanced society. We have models of socialist advanced societies, like Sweden, or in some ways Germany. But we have not had in Europe, until now, a real model for a liberal advanced society ... France is a traditionalist country, one that hangs on to its past and traditions while leading a rather active intellectual life. There is an apparent contradiction between intellectual life and the sentiment for traditions. But from time to time one must try to reconcile those, and I would like to use the intellectual capacity of France to invent, to organize a genuinely liberal advanced society. Why do I say liberal? It could be socialist. But the French nature, instinct and behavior are profoundly based upon individual freedom, and the feeling of security acquired through individual ownership. Sometimes it borders on anarchy, as you know.

Q. How do you explain the continuing appeal of the left in France?

A, France has always been intellectually left-leaning, but rationally prefers a center government. It is always the center that wins, and it will remain so. Outsiders do not always understand this. It was said that because of the close vote in the presidential campaign, there was a real danger of a split in French society, accompanied by violence. Well, not at all. We have had no major strikes, no major social or student problems. I think that the liberal attitude of our administration has undercut the left.

Q. Are there any fundamental differences in policy between France and the U.S.?

A. Among all the Western democracies, the normal relationship between the U.S. and France is one of easy understanding. On the other hand, among all the Western democracies, we are probably the one which has the most precise foreign policy goals, and this is not fully understood by the U.S.

Q. Can the U.S. and France agree on a Middle Eastern policy?

A, Yes, there is no difference of view on that. There is, in my judgment, a question that requires more initiatives: the Palestinian question. It goes back to the question of protecting the borders, and dangers in the cease-fire line. I think the problem now is centered on the Palestinian question. As such, one must not hide from it and must look at it as a problem.

Q. Do you feel that the international monetary situation can continue safely?

A. No. It is a very dangerous situation, and no one can expect to save himself by the mechanism of self-protection. One country may be in a better position than its neighbor, but the real problem is to be aware that the present economic difficulties in the world come from a mixture of inflation and depression. It is a very dangerous situation that no one single country is able to control by itself, even the U.S. And I certainly expect that there will be some joint action soon.

Q. Were you offended by President Ford's failure to mention Europe in his Inaugural Address ?

A. This was not an offense, but it was an interesting fact, showing that Europe is not the main preoccupation of American policymakers. They speak about the U.S.S.R. and China, while they take Europe for granted. I understand this very well, and I think it shows that we have to organize ourselves, to define what we are and stand on our own feet.

Q. If President Ford and Mr. Kissinger were to start talking more about Europe, what would you like to hear?

A. Honestly, I think it is better for American leaders not to speak too much about European unity. It's exactly as though we were making statements about your policy on the American continent, saying, "Well, you should do this and that." The organization of Europe is really our problem.

Q-- How do you respond to the criticism that you value style more than substance?

A. I attach great importance to style. Style is the aesthetic of action. You cannot have an aesthetic without action. If I'm supposed to have a sense of style, it's because there has really been a fundamental change. In this sense, it is a compliment to be criticized for giving too much importance to style.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.