Monday, May. 17, 1976
'Much Depends on France'
French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing last week discussed his views of France and the world with TIME Managing Editor Henry Grunwald and Paris Bureau Chief Gregory Wierzynski. Excerpts from their conversation:
Q. Could you give us a balance sheet of your first two years in office?
A. On the positive side, I have succeeded in maintaining France in peace--political and social--for two years. Secondly, I have succeeded in persuading the French public that I want to conduct a transformation of French society. When I was elected, they hardly believed me. They thought it was an electoral tactic. Now they are convinced.
On the negative side, it has not been possible to shield our economy as much as I would have liked from the world economic crisis, and reforms have not yet been pushed far enough for the public to appreciate their positive character.
Q. Are you convinced that France wants to be reformed?
A. Absolutely, and if the choice were put in simple terms--"Do you want to keep France as it is"--the conservative position would not receive more than 40% of the vote. France has always had a certain difficulty in deciding on reforms, but once the reforms are made, the people are surprised that these changes were not done earlier. Q. In the last local elections the left won 53% of the vote. Why is there such a strong socialist trend in France today?
A. At present what is called socialism here reflects two currents--a socialist trend and a flow of general discontent. Together these currents amount to the percentage that you cite. But when economic recovery moderates the flow of discontent, the position of the Socialist Party as a whole will be less important.
Furthermore, there are two tendencies of roughly equal importance within the Socialist Party: one that favors social democratic solutions, and the other, which strongly supports an alliance with the Communists. One of the key problems of French political life is the relationship between these two parts of the Socialist Party.
Q. Do you agree with Secretary Kissinger's concern that if the Communists shared power in Italy there could be dangerous reverberations in, say, Spain, Greece and perhaps Portugal? Do you fear a north-south split in Europe?
A. There is an unfortunate temptation to separate Europe into north and south, to envision the north with liberal or social democratic governments that actively manage their societies and a lower tier governed by socialist and Communist alliances that will perpetuate the south as a less developed zone.
There are no serious reasons to state that southern European democracies will be governed by socialist-Communist alliances. It is true that in the Latin part of Europe, which includes France, political tensions are strong. But in these countries, social and political stability is stronger than people usually think. France links these two parts of Europe, and thus its own behavior will be important for its southern neighbors. Much depends on France.
Q. Many Europeans say that Communists in Italy and possibly in France should be believed when they say they will be faithful to NATO and would accept a mixed economy. Do you agree?
A. To implement the program of the left would bring economic disorders. Logic does exist in politics, and logic is stronger than statements. Communists in power will conform to their doctrine, which obviously does not endorse free enterprise, participation in NATO or the construction of a united Europe. Even if the Communists' language seems more moderate today, their basic principles remain the same.
Q. What could other Europeans do if Communists came to power in Rome?
We have a tradition of nonintervention. Q. What should the U.S. do?
A. It would be a mistake for the U.S. to interfere in what is considered here an internal problem. On the other hand, it is normal that Washington make known the consequences a change in the political situation of Italy would have on its own policies.
Q. Are Western democracies increasingly besieged by Marxist gains around the world, or is this an illusion ?
A. Our political and economic system is not doomed. Market-oriented economies retain an obvious advantage in their economic capabilities and in the field of individual freedom. One should not confuse the rise of nationalism, particularly in decolonized countries, with the choice they make of a political or economic system. A freshly decolonized rural country can hardly be expected to choose the free-enterprise system of modern industrialized states. But this does not mean that later on these new countries will be unfriendly.
Q. In the long run, can the non-Communist industrial countries satisfy the demands of their people, control inflation and keep their democratic institutions intact?
A. In a world without too many confrontations, yes. But in a world where there are acute and strong confrontations, it will be difficult. We must and will succeed. France has reached a standard of living that makes dealing with the problem easier. It is more difficult in countries that are no longer underdeveloped but have not reached the $2,000 to $3,000 per capita income level. In these countries, active social policies are necessary in order to reduce privileges, unify social classes and so on.
Q. Do you approve of the Ford-Kissinger detente policy?
A. Yes. Detente assumes maintenance of a balance of power that is perceived by each side as unquestionable. The alternative to detente is confrontation and the risk of war. I do not believe that can be the only policy.
This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.