Number 36 - november 2009

Dear Attendees,

Once again, the Prime Minister has shown the special interest he has for defence and security issues in his speech on October 9th at the Military Academy in front of all attendees of the IHEDN, CHEAr, IHNES, and IERSE national sessions during the joint Institute integration seminar.

His speech bears witness to the in-depth reform of the defence and security institutes, now in its implementation phase. In their new configuration the IHEDN and the INHESJ will form, from January 1st, 2010: a “defence / foreign affairs” hub and a “security / justice” hub.

From this point forward, the 300 or so national session attendees will be periodically united throughout the year for joint working sessions.

These crosscutting views will not lead to a confusion of roles or identities for the two future institutes, but better coordination of training periods and increased resource pooling between these two actors serving the same goal, constituting a defence and security community.

Participating in developing concepts, acting rather than enduring, preparing our children’s world, living free and in peace...

Let’s be certain that imagination, decompartmentalization and pooling knowledge will provide for developing responses to the challenges posed by an uncertain world.

In January, the next IHEDN newsletter will be that of a renovated Institute.

Admiral Richard Laborde
Director of the Institute of Higher National Defence Studies (IHEDN)

Une présidence de crise [A Crisis Presidency]
Jouyet, Jean-Pierre; Coignard, Sophie

Albin Michel, Paris, 2009, 238p.

Jean-Pierre Jouyet, Nicolas Sarkozy’s Minister of European Affairs during the French presidency of the European Union from July to December 2008 provides us, in the form of a dialogue with a journalist, a compelling testimonial regarding the preparation, unfolding, and consequences of France’s EU presidency.

This book allows us to penetrate directly into the inner workings of European negotiations, where agreements are arranged (though changes in wording) and where haggling occurs, for example during Head of State dinners. We dive into the heart of the European diplomatic machine, illustrated by the example of the last European Council meeting under the French presidency in December 2008. On this occasion, the French worked around the German refusal to reconsider the constraints inherent in the Stability Pact by seeking out the support of the British. To do so, they used the old diplomatic method consisting of adding a few lines regarding the CAP, a subject spurned by the British, to the Council’s draft conclusions that the French agreed to remove in exchange for British support. Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy debated this agreement even before Council negotiations began. Even better, it was Gordon Brown himself, a non-euro-zone member, who made the proposal to Angela Merkel: “a major French victory on a traditional sticking point with Germany” (p. 18).

Another negotiation, another lesson regarding diplomatic negotiation: during the climate-package negotiation, the French were satisfied to note that, when technical negotiations tumultuous, it would be a bad move to end the session as you must strike the iron while it is hot: “while everyone was rereading the nth version, a suspension would have dampened spirits, leading to new amendments being drafted and ruined the chances of coming to an agreement” (p. 20).

During this presidency, Jean-Pierre Jouyet tried to change French politicians’ tropism regarding France’s European policy: no longer “pushing the European agenda in France” but “pushing the French agenda in Europe” (p. 33), copying the British strategy which remains one of the most effective. However, generally speaking “pushing the French agenda in Europe” does not constitute a priority for members of the French executive.

Regarding the European sentiment of French politicians, Jean-Pierre Jouyet provides us with some interesting reflections. In his opinion, “Europe is a necessary evil” for French politicians, which they come to realize when taking up their posts since nothing can be accomplished without concentration with France’s European partners (p. 37). He adds that “the major political animals all end up understanding that it is better to be pro-European if you want to reach the higher levels. Because the French, although voting “no” to the proposed European constitution [...] do not like their leaders to be against Europe” (p.38).

However, a few pages later, we have to admit that this talk often goes unheeded. So, Jean-Pierre Jouyet informs us that, concretely, French ministers during the EU’s French presidency are often more preoccupied by national affairs that by their participation, for example, in the European Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg. In a single day, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, responsible for European Affairs, had to replace not less than seven ministers delayed in Paris, much to his despair. France’s image with European institutions evidently suffers but, even worse, the conduct of European affairs is affected, given the impossibility of one man mastering all the cases handled by 7 different ministries (218): indeed, he had to defend France’s position regarding innumerable cases that he did not master. This partially explains the lack of French influence in European institutions. The absence of the principle French political personalities is so much the more notable since other major countries do not hesitate to send their main representatives.

This testimonial book clearly shows, in the end, that the French presidency, and therefore the EU, was more effective on the international political level, contrary to European habit, with the crisis in Georgia. The economy, the EU’s traditional domain of influence, remained in the background with the financial crisis affecting all of Europe with full force. In times of crisis, need is the mother of virtue. The mandate from France’s European partners was: “do what you must so the fighting stops and the Russians calm down” (84). According to Mr. Jouyet, a certain political Europe was born there, in particular organized around a “highly engaged president” and an “a-typical Minister of Foreign Affairs, who found himself in his element with this type of crisis” (85). The absence of the United States and the interests of eastern European states also played a role. According to Mr. Jouyet, the French presidency allowed Georgia to maintain its national sovereignty, or more surely, avoided Mikhail Saakhachvili’s overthrow. This is why he concludes from this episode that “‘soft power’ paid better than the American ‘gunship’ policy in the Black Sea” (88).

The intimacy of European negotiations also allows us to realize the importance of the Commission: it is not 27 states, but 28 actors who debate. To perfect the Treaty of Lisbon, the Commission defended its interest, with the credo of remaining anchored “in the liberal ideology of defending the market and competition at any price.” So it received the support of Italy to maintain mention of pure and perfect competition within the European market as one of the Union’s fundamental goals, to which France remained inflexibly opposed (107). Italy, Belgium, and Luxemburg, at the time, constituted the Commission’s “Trojan horse” whose only imperative was remaining hidden.

Finally, anecdotes and the unfolding of major European negotiations constitute the main interest of this little book. The adoption of the simplified treaty in June 2007, under the German presidency, a year before the French presidency, was the subject of incredible heated exchanges. Poland blocked the negotiations. More than Poland and its strategic interests, it was especially the Kaczinski twins, president and prime minister, who could not come to an agreement with Angela Merkel. It all involved interpersonal relations that lead to Angela Merkel’s decision to suggest a Europe of 26+1 without Poland. It was discovered that President Kaczinski could not decided anything without his twin brother. It was Jaroslaw, awakened in the middle of the night who finally agreed, under strong pressure from France, not without also waking the entire Polish Sejm (lower house of parliament). An agreement need to be reached without delay in order to avoid excluding Poland as the Germans planned, in a grotesque climate (110-111). Once the Polish dispute was settled, late at night, Italy, Belgium, and Luxemburg charged into battle: but the possibility of convoking a new Council three days later calmed the situation. “The heads of state and government have a busy enough schedule for the argument to hold” (111). This experience, conducted “to the end of the night” left Nicolas Sarkozy with a sour taste so he wanted to make the French presidency a model: no negotiations were extended beyond their strict deadline, which had become the habit within the European Union.

Baptiste Chatré, Head of the Training Directorate’s Teaching Department

“Defence / Foreign Affairs and Security / Justice” Institutes’ Integration Seminar

October 9th and 10th, 2009 at the Military Academy

In order to trace a new path for strategic research, the President and Prime Minister have decided to bring together the defence and security Institutes. Without waiting for the effective merger between the Institute of Higher National Defence Studies (IHEDN) and the Centre for Higher Armaments Studies (CHEAr), on the one hand, and the National Institute for Higher Security Studies (INHES) and the Corporate Security Research and Study Institute (IERSE), on the other hand, which will become effective on January 1st, 2010, a joint core curriculum for the various national sessions has been created.

As stipulated in the 2009 decrees, the primary mission of the IHEDN and the INHESJ is to “Unite high-level leaders.” For the first time, Friday October 9th and Saturday October 10th, some 300 Military Academy attendees, high level civil servants and military personnel, as well as from various sectors in the Nation’s activities, European Union Member States and other states, participated in an integration seminar prefiguring the future “defence – foreign affairs” and “security – justice” hubs mentioned in the Defence and National Security White Paper. This seminar is a manifestation of the continuum between defence and security resulting from the new “National Security Strategy” concept. Placed under the Prime Minister, the two Institutes, IHEDN and INHESJ have come together at the Military Academy on a single site. All aspects of global security will be covered: political, military, diplomatic, police, legal, as well as economic and industrial.

Author of the report “Detect-Study-Train: a new path for strategic research,” the chair of the National Delinquency Observatory, Alain Bauer specified the “issues of strategic research reform” before François Heisbourg, special advisor to the Foundation for Strategic Research drafted a “Panorama of the Contemporary World.”

With the major security issues thus illuminated, Prime Minister François Fillon opened the seminar with the reminder that defence and security have long formed a indissociable whole, but that by “deciding to articulate them more closely in our strategic thinking, we have given ourselves the means to coordinate our political, military, and security action.” Falling into step with him, the Chief of the Military Staff, General Jean-Louis Georgelin observed that the national strategy has become global under the influence of various factors and in particular, the change in perception of the notion of national security: “While its primary ends remains the preservation of France as a community of destiny, as a state it is now highlighting the protection of individuals and fundamental values.”

The afternoon began with Xavier Raufer, research director at the Paris Criminology Institute, who described “New Threats and Early Detection.” Later, a roundtable regarding intelligence was lead by the chairman of the IHEDN’s board of directors, Olivier Darrason, around authorities in this domain: Bernard Bajolet, French national intelligence director, Bernard Squarcini, French interior intelligence central director, Erard Corbin de Mangoux, exterior security general director and the and army General Benoit Puga, director of military intelligence. The session was closed on October 9th by the General Secretary of National Defense, Francis Delon, who highlighted four threats implicating interministerial coordination: terrorism, proliferation, cyber-attacks, and risk of flu pandemics.

The “Security” day on October 10th was dedicated first to “Strategic Security Priorities” with the Paris Police Prefect, Michel Gaudin, representing the Ministry of the Interior, Oversees Territories and Territorial Collectivities; followed by “Justice’s Place in a Global Security Policy,” by the cabinet director for the Minister of State, Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice and Freedom, François Molins; and finally “Globalization and National Security,” with the Director of the Security Notebooks, Yves Roucaute.

This integration seminar prefigured the joint encounters and conferences for the four Institutes’ national sessions that will punctuate the coming year. A closing symposium, organized jointly in March will also be a highlight of this new cooperation.

Sophie Jacquin, Central Management Project Manager

International Latin America Session

The 3rd International Latin America Session (SIAL) was held from October 8th to 15th. Bringing together 26 attendees, two representatives per country, this session’s theme was “Security Threats in Latin America in a Changing Context and Possible Responses.”
Reflection was undertaken on existing threats to stability and security at the national, regional, and international levels given recent geopolitical developments. The conferences favoured extensive participation by the Ministries of Foreign and European Affairs, Defence, Justice as well as Economy, Industry, and Employment, research institutes (IRIS, IHEAL), industrial groups alongside European Union’s and United Nations’ organizations and institutions, active in the fields of security and defence (EUROPOL, CMUE, ONUDC).

Participants were able to develop an overview of the various response levels and discover, during the various committee sessions, propositions susceptible of improving security in Latin America.

An exercise of influence and the IHEDN’s contribution to the dissemination of French strategic thinking, the SIAL ended with the creation of an alumni’s association, so that this collective experience may continue and take form through joint projects.

Alexandra Lepeltier, IHEDN International Activities Department researcher

Presidents’ Day October 19th

As every year, the presidents of the UNION-IHEDN associations met on Monday October 19th to take the pulse of the parent organization. It is a day where they are attentive to the past year’s assessment, where they are exposed to the Institute’s high points, and especially, where they are able to express their satisfaction or difficulties.

With his very clear initial message, the new Director, Rear Admiral Richard Laborde described the IHEDN’s broader mission with its new components: defence economy and international relations.

In particular he specified that: “Decisions have been made and now it is a question of entering into their dynamic without reserve. We will be playing the complementarity game with other institutes and we will wait until next year to conduct an objective assessment.”

The Institute’s various directors also took the opportunity to speak. They detailed their activities and communicated with those people most often the kingpins in activities after sessions and seminars.

Later, the morning’s workshops provided the opportunity for the presidents to reflect on issues regarding four areas: attendee studies and their forum, regional activities, influence diplomacy, as well as attendee commitment and training.

In the afternoon, their work was presented to the plenary session so everyone could benefit from the four workshops, which will be the subject of coming reports.

Jean Raphaël Notton, president of the UNION-IHEDN, concluded by inviting participants to get to work making these reflections a reality in their various activities.

General (2S) Michel Perrodon, responsible for “Associations” for the IHEDN’s management

178th Regional Session: Clermont-Ferrand / Saint-Étienne

Attendees of the IHEDN’s 178th session, “La Fayette” class, returned to their usual occupations ten days ago, with a wealth of very strong joint experiences typical of sessions organized by the Institute. In Clermont-Ferrand, Le Puy-en-Velay, and Saint-Étienne, over the four and a half week session they studiously attended, many of them developed and some of them perfected their defence and security culture through all the activities on offer.

Making contact with nearly all French armed forces, through the 92nd Infantry Regiment in Clermont-Ferrand, and the 942nd Air Base in Lyon Mont-Verdun, they have taken the measure of Defence, their Defence, and appreciated all its facets. Their missions and resources were presented in detail by specialists in their respective domains, whether regular soldiers assigned to External Operations or employees of Nexter Systems in the Defence Industry.

Beyond the purely Defence aspect, and falling more largely under the Security Policy theme, they broached issues facing all the men and women working in this domain. In particular, they attended conferences held by the Minister of the Interior Brice Hortefeux, the Loire DDSP (public security departmental security directorate), and the Auvergne Gendarmerie legion.

Regarding geopolitics, the attendees were able to attend a large number of conferences on various subjects around the central theme “The European Union Striving for Internal and External Security” from “Jihad 8 Years after September 11th” to “Geopolitics of the Caucuses,” though “Nuclear Dissuasion” and so acquired a certain number of keys to reading the modern world, fulfilling the directives of the Ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs’ White Paper. In addition, they had a day specially organized by the IHEDN’s Economic Intelligence and Training Session department to polish their culture regarding these issues, a sensitive domain for these attendees who are, majoritarily, likely to be confronted with directly related issues.

Finally, an IHEDN class could not end without the committee reports defended before the Institute’s director during the closing event after researching and writing throughout the session.

Captain Julien Cheize, “Defence Policy” Session Department Supervisor

IHEDN-FRS Conference
Nuclear non-proliferation facing contemporary challenges

On November 10th, IHEDN began a new partnership, in the organisation of its roundtables. IHEDN in cooperation with the FRS chose to convene an expert roundtable on nuclear non-proliferation issues: facing contemporary challenges. A topical subject which prompted more than 200 people to come to the Ecole militaire in order to participate in the debate.

Admiral Richard LABORDE opened the symposium and thanked the FRS, especially its director, Camille GRAND, for his involvement in the organisation of the event. He then enumerated key challenges and opportunities for the future of the non-proliferation regime: the departure of Mohamed EL BARADEI as director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) where he worked for 12 years, the proximity of the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2010, American and French commitments to the success of the disarmament process, and also the concern of the countries that are subject to the threat of proliferating states. He finally outlined the position defended by France in the 2008 Defence and National Security White Paper.

In his introduction, Camille GRAND explained the current situation and the different crisis in which the stability of the non-proliferation regime has been challenged: especially in Iran and in North Korea. But he also pointed out the lack of political will to make use of the instruments that are already available and a split in the consensus about non-proliferation.

During the first part of the conference dedicated to the current limits of the international instruments concerning non-proliferation, Tiphaine de CHAMPCHESNEL, from the Strategic Affairs Delegation (DAS) of the French Ministry of Defence, presented the stakes of the NPT Review Conference in 2010.  If the treaty in force since 1970, is dedicated to non-proliferation, as indicated by its name, it also rests on two other pillars which are disarmament and promotion of peaceful use of nuclear energy. The Review Conference, to be held under particularly tense circumstances, is intended to ensure the treaty is enforced, and not to replace it. However, the breakdown of the non-proliferation regime has already encouraged the apparition of new instruments in order to fight against proliferation.

Why talk about fight against proliferation while a non-proliferation regime exists? This was the question Benjamin HAUTECOUVERTURE, researcher at the Center for International Security and Arms Control Studies (CESIM), decided to deal with in his presentation. The main instruments generally referred to are the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and the Resolution 1540 of the United Nations Security Council, but these instruments are numerous and therefore drive one to question their position towards the non-proliferation regime. Are they intended to consolidate this regime or rather to compete with it?

The study of the Pakistani and Iranian cases, respectively on the outside and the inside of the NPT regime, made up the second part of the conference.

Bruno TERTRAIS, research director at the FRS, presented the Pakistani case. He first tried to define the Pakistani nuclear personality before explaining why this State, according to him, concentrates all the current nuclear proliferation problems. This led him to raise the question about which country will be the “next Pakistan” in the future .The question about whether or not Pakistan constitutes an example for the management of the Iranian crisis made a direct transition to the speech of Martin BRIENS, from the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation direction of the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs.

The last speaker reiterated the facts announced by IAEA in its last Report on August 28, 2009, and reminded that the result of the negotiations with Iran today is not very conclusive. The IAEA Governors Council, next November 20th, should be decisive. It’s essential to show the determination of the international community in this case.

Chloé de PERRY, Responsible for university relations, training department

The France-Brazil Strategic Partnership

A Fruitful, Long-Term Relationship Intensifying Since the Beginning of the Century
France-Brazil military cooperation has existed for long time. Until 1939 a French mission contributed to training and renewing Brazil’s troops. Then, in 1944 General Mascarenhas’s Brazilian division participated in the Italy campaign alongside the French.

This relationship underwent a revival starting at the turn of the century, with the sale of the aircraft carrier Foch (renamed São Paulo) and the signature of a naval cooperation plan in 2001. The organization of the largest joint military exercise in South America (in partnership with Argentina and Chile) in 2002 bears witness to strengthening France-Brazil cooperation.

In 2005, the Year of Brazil in France, President Lula da Silva attended the July 14th parade, with the participation of several Brazilian army units. That same year, a joint taskforce regarding defence technologies was created. The following year, French equipment participated in the Brazilian national holiday parade.

In 2006, a joint air force exercise with Argentina, Chile, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela was successfully conducted. More than one hundred planes participated. That same year, Brazil, looking to renew its aircraft fleet, bought 12 Mirage 2000 aircraft from France. A simple transitional stage before buying new generation aircraft, the agreement also provides for training Brazilian pilots and mechanics and the sale of air-to-air weapons. Delivery was completed in 2008.

The Strategic France-Brazil Partnership, Signed In January 2008, Expressing Renewed Cooperation
The strategic partnership falls in the continuity of good relations between France and Brazil. Nevertheless, it illustrates a change, as much in the nature as the intensity of the cooperation: “between Brazil and France, it is not a supplier-client relationship but a partnership. All our industrial cooperation, both civil and defence, is based on technology transfers and extensive co-production. [...] It is not selling. It is building together. And if we want to build together, it is because we share the same values and the same view of major international issues.” (Interview with Nicolas Sarkozy President of France with the Brazilian daily newspaper O Globo, September 6th, 2009)
In negotiation since 2003, the text extends the content of annual meetings between French and Brazilian military staff. They deal with capacity improvements (assisting Brazil with updating its air and sea operation capacities) experience exchanges, export supports, and operational support for inter-state security activities (regional cooperation to optimize handling of border security).

Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France, accompanied by the Minister of Defence Hervé Morin, went to Brazil in December 2008 to sign the agreement. It was an opportunity to sign significant arms contracts. The purchase of 50 EC-725 transport helicopters and 4 Scorpène attack submarines was confirmed; cooperation regarding the construction of a nuclear submarine was decided. Concretely, the France-Brazil strategic partnership (agreement regarding defence cooperation and the status of French and Brazilian forces dated January 29th 2008) defines the legal framework and coordination activities. It provides a protective status for French and Brazilian personnel by establishing a priority competence for judging infractions committed in service. It was ratified and published in the Official Journal in December 2008.

Brazilian and French military staffs decided to take advantage of the celebrations in 2009 of the Year of France in Brazil to develop this strategic partnership. Several manifestations will illustrate France-Brazil cooperation: Patrouille de France visit, submarine layover, aircraft deployment.
In September 2009, France and Brazil decided to begin negotiations regarding:

1. Brazil’s purchase of Rafale combat aircraft;
2. acquisition of the future Brazilian KC-390 transport aircraft by France.

Small Business Support Policy

The French arms industry represents about 150,000 employees. 25 to 30% of them are employed by small businesses. The latter represent more than 70% of the Ministry’s suppliers. Finally, remember that €16 billion are allocated each year by the ministry for outfitting its forces.

“Small Business Ministry of Defence Order Access Improvement” Plan Launched by Minister Hervé Morin in December 2007
The plan’s five major headings launched in December 2007 are aimed at supporting small businesses’ defence activity. It is a question of improving information, facilitating small businesses direct access to the General Delegation for Ordnance’s arms contracts, subcontracting for major arms programs and export markets, and implementing follow-up indicators.

Calling for a “small business act,” Minister Hervé Morin’s goal consists of facilitating small businesses’ access to the Ministry’s contracts and its research and development programs: “I am highly attached to the Ministry of Defence improving small businesses’ access to the public orders it manages.”(Interview in the daily newspaper Les Echos, April 1st, 2008).

This process falls under the continuity of work previously conducted by the small business mission, the favoured contact for businesses within the Ministry of Defence. The latter’s goal consists of improving relations between acquisition services and businesses.

Ministry of Defence Supplements Small Business Plan Financing RAPID Scheme with €10 million.
Number one public purchaser and the number one partner for businesses for research, the Ministry of Defence dedicates €700 million each year to upstream design activities. These research credits represent two-thirds of public financing for research and development received by businesses, or about 10% of national expenditures in this domain.

Christine Lagarde, Minister of the Economy, Industry, and Employment, and Hervé Morin, Minister of Defence, announced, in May 2009, the launch of RAPID, a scheme for supporting small businesses’ strategic innovation projects. It has been implemented by the DGCIS (general directorate for competition, industry, and services) and the General Delegation for Ordnance.

It is a question of encouraging industrial research and technological development presenting military applications. All autonomous small businesses with less than 250 employees – alone or as a consortium with a research firm or body - may submit a candidature for a subsidy. The scheme’s principle lies it is reactiveness: it takes only four months from submitting the application to the start of work.

› The Institute’s Documentation centre

If one of your colleagues doesn't yet receive the "IHedn newsletter", please send us their e-mail address to: lalettreih@ihedn.fr

Readers’ letters
Your views interest us

If you no longer wish to receive the IHedn newsletter or if you would like to change your address, please send an e-mail to : lalettreih@ihedn.fr , stating the e-mail address that you wish to unsubscribe or register. You will receive a confirmation message once this has been sent
Contact: lalettreIH@ihedn.fr