VZCZCXRO6657
RR RUEHIK RUEHYG
DE RUEHFR #0422/01 0331508
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 021508Z FEB 07
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4652
INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE
RUEHMRE/AMCONSUL MARSEILLE 1511
RUEHSR/AMCONSUL STRASBOURG 0308
RUEHLB/AMEMBASSY BEIRUT 0489

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