(00:00:00) I think proper to start my remarks by saying a few words about the state of things in my country. The things things are not entirely Jose in France. They are not acting entirely Jose anywhere in the world. We have not properly speaking a recession, but we certainly have a very low growth and pretty high figure of unemployment. However, we have sound elements in our economy. We have very good very efficient and sound banking system our companies during the the hard time that the the have the years that we have just known have restructured and sanitized. Themselves. So we think that Financial capacity is all right, we had we have a budget and monetary situation which is sound and very low rate of inflation the lowest in Europe at present time and good and improving foreign trade so that the development of exportations is supplementing what is lacking in terms of internal demand. So these are not entirely bad traits. Although unemployment is the main preoccupation. I must had that against the historical background. You can see that for 40 years for the last 40 years. My country has known an extremely important transformation process of internationalisation of its economy 40 years ago. French economy with extremely preventional the idea was to produce for the internal markets and exporting abroad was considered as a risque Adventure. The transformation is absolutely astounding is really enormous. Now, we are really we have really become a part of the global economic 25 percent of our gross national product is made out of exportation. So we are highly dependent on the international trade and this brings about a complete change in the mentalities in the attitudes of the economic actors the French banks. I said that they are sound and proficient the French banks are everywhere in the world all five. Continents of the world and our firms are big industrial groups make it part of adopt adopt Global wealth strategies. And for example lot of them made it part of this Global strategy to have an operation in the United States and indeed over the last 10 to 15 years, maybe 15 finds industrial groups have made investments in the United States of a magnitude of more than a billion Frank and sometimes amounting to a move to a billion to a billion dollars after some experimentation and hesitation in Social and economic policy. The government of France made very clear choice. To reject any kind of isolation to refuse to react to the economic difficulties by closing ourselves in and to accept the game of international trade the game of the Common Market and a common market which we conceived as an open command Market the market open to the ice out to the outside world. This went along with very tight and very strict fiscal and budgetary policy and policy which had as a name the keeping of a high value to the French franc and I think that if we look at the international markets if we look at the export Market if we look at the the can see market and if we Look at the decisions made by the foreign investors a great portion of which really choose founds as a gateway to Europe. Then we can see that the the assessment of the economic community in the world is a positive assessment towards my country. The presence of the French business in the United States is still not quite enough in spite of the Investments. I talked about we must work to develop it. We are we do we do a flare 2% of American Imports and but we do Global a of four percent of world import so are our anchor and the American Market is less than our rank over all over the world globally and We're all working to to improve that I would add that. Our presence economic presence in United States is not entirely equally distributed is more presence of our companies on the east coast in California in Texas than for example in a place like here and although we have a lot of the French companies which have developed activities in some areas in the Midwest and South Korea around Chicago. I came here to see what can be done. I had a very good discussion with your Governor. We have projects in several fields in a bulldozer to in order to give a very concrete example, we think of developing contacts in the field of medical activity and we are planning to organize the trade commissioner Chicago with the your your La your medical Al And the your chamber of commerce and your trade office is putting together a medical seminar, which will take place this year in Minneapolis. Now a few word maybe a few words maybe about the situation of the European Community because the LA your partner in trade is not France or Germany or Italy it is globally the European Community. We are a little bit at a standstill that is we had given ourselves very ambitious goals when we decided to to make to organize the single market and on top of the single Market to sign the Treaty of Maastricht which provided for economic and monetary Union and for First Steps in the direction of a tool a political union among the members of the community that is the beginning of a common foreign policy and of the policy in a field of Defense as you know that we run into The figure days about the ratification of this Maastricht treaty the Dane Danish voters rejected it and they treat a was approved in France only by a narrow majority. There is also some difficulty in Great Britain why all that maybe the treaty was not clear enough maybe the the goals were too ambitious or not clearly stated. Maybe also we suffer from a lack of present lack of enthusiasm for European integration, which is linked to the present economic situation. Obviously in times of difficulty. Everybody is preoccupied. The tendency is to blame the difficult is not on yourself, but on your neighbor, including your neighbor and partner inside the European community. And the tendency of the the people in times of pessimism is to fall back on their national identity and there was fear among the Europeans in each country that something like the Maastricht treaty happy development of European integration would lead them to lose these National identities. So there is the sentiment we think that it is only a temporary phenomenon and that sooner or later the move forward. We'll start again. The single Market is done. The only part which is not done is the the most the most obvious it is for the for the citizen it is The free circulation of persons which says known as certain time lag because of the difficulty of having together that the European countries agreeing together to a common action in in such delicate Fields as a Visa control immigration and police of the borders because if you suppress entire lady in our borders, you have to have a common action at the outer borders. This is not entirely finished but the single Market is for the essential reality the Maastricht treaty will be I hope I defied and we will see to it to go forward in the direction of monetary Union if not between the 12 members of the community, but at least among a hardcore of contrast which are economically able and ready to do it. Then there is also there is of course the problem of coming out of the recession. It is a problem. That is that is that is that we all conformed and as we are global economy. Everybody is looking over his shoulder to see what the next one is doing to to get to 2 to go out of the recession. We think that we have we have a very good very optimistic assessment of the of the prospect in the United States and we do hope the United States. Well where we view the recovery of the United States as a way to do to to pull us out of the other slow down, we believe also that the difficulties of Germany which are very real at present time will be temporary and that's the the Germans will again played a role in our final in our in our goals and I think that's with a with a with a with a companies which are basically sound in a financial situation and with a good fiscal and monetary policy that we have. We French are ready to play are all in this recovery. What about the problems of international trade? We view it with you this problems from the point of view of this opening of this open attitude, which I have described in accepting the European common market. We accept an open system the unit the European Community is the most open of all trade Partners in the world and we complete layer we completely resist the presentation of the European Community as for Torres indeed. It's a very open for Tressa. We think that there is a bad mood today in international in in the rhetoric about International Trade. There is a bad moon because there is a bad mood because ice too much reasoning on Strictly National or narrowly national terms one talks about these things as if you're when would be my loss and my win would be your loss but it is not like that. It is not a zero-sum game and we talked also the we hear people talking as if the industry was not Global but the industry is global and ISO intermingling in the production. Everybody knows there are there are discussions about Airbus. Everybody knows that an Airbus is has a 40% of American content. Few fewer people know that the Brewing 70 Boeing 7570767 as nearly 30 or more than 30 percent of foreign content including European content. So the narrow presentation of these things in terms of national competition of national war of national trade War. We think is very wrong. We had a few problems with the United States Administration. We have the problem of Steel where we think frankly that there was it was a case of using anti subsidy regulations in order not at all to fight subsidies, but to close the US market and to raise domestic prices at the expense of the US consumer, we have these accusations about Airbus. At the time when we have a few months ago concluded an agreement with binding for us and for the American government on the limiting and the diminishing of the of subsidies both direct and indirect to the construction of civilian aircraft yet. We have Acquisitions as if this agreement did not exist or as if there was there were other the the will not to take it into account and we resent that and frankly we think that there is a has to be a common rule in international trade a common rule observed by everybody. If there is a Uruguay round agreement, there must be a multilateral system to settle the dispute and we don't see how this multilateral system to settle the disputes can go with the keeping keeping the possibility of unilateral. All trade sanctions against against trade Partners, you need have told sanctions which are the recipe for trade War. I hear I see in the press in this country almost daily. Maybe not in your question Minnesota other because I think you have a more sober attitude on this questions. I see a picture of the Uruguay round problem, which is roughly there is a there is a superb trade deal closed attend. It's almost there, but we cannot get to it because a bunch of retarded French farmers are insisting are not cutting agricultural subsidies. That is exactly I guess your grants me that I'm not exaggerating that Israel the presentation which is given well what I have to say to that I have to say first there is no deal close at hand. Unfortunately, we would wish there were but if you look really at the other chapters besides, okay. Also, it's not ready at all. And there are plenty of disputes and plenty of their work possible fields in which you made your government made off first and then and then withdrew the offers and then entire chapters, for example on this business of settlement of disputes, which is absolutely Central in which you say now your people say now that they don't want the deal they want to put that out of the Raymond look at article later. So it's not close attend at all. We wish it were second. It is not true that we oppose cutting down on Farm subsidies. This dress not to we have accepted or it is deal is done. We have accepted to cut down Farm subsidies and we implemented it on our own with the reform of the of the of the common agricultural policy of the Common Market. So the issue the remaining issue on agricultural trade is not about the volume of subsidies. This is settled. It's about your demand that we diminish the volume of our exports of agricultural products. This is what the fight is about. And we resist we resist the demand that in the name of free trade, we should be asked to cut down voluntarily the volume of exports because we find it is unfair That the other partners including the United States would not practically have any comparative compare comparable obligations and we think it's difficult to do it's difficult to accept. It is also not true that we do not accept an evolution of farm system throughout less employment in agriculture and diminution of the surpluses. This is not true. The the number of farmers in country like France is going down all the time, but it is very painful process very difficult in human terms. Those are solidarity between the whole of the population and the farmers and the plight on the difficult plight of the farmers and we agree that it will have to still go down and down and down along the years, but we want to control this Evolution to do it in our own way and to take taking into account the human hardships which go with it. In my opinion a deal will have to be made on the Uruguay round. We I'm afraid it will take more time than ever. It seems to think but it will have to be need to be made and I would add that there is no alternative to that neither for Europe nor for the United States United States needs needs a Uruguay round agreement because there is no other way and which means what which means that if things are far apart today and they are and if we all need an agreement, there will have to be consistent but concessions from all quarters. Not only from one we have a lot. We have a lot of things in common. We have a lot of things in common in our economy because it's these are Global economies and we are linked we are linked together. We have a sunny day before the new Perils of the world the proliferation of destructive arms terrorism the various cases which arrives of the of the situation of the former communist countries both in the former USSR and in countries like Yugoslavia and others and we are linked together on all these counts. That's why we think that solid political and security link between the United States and the European Community is still necessary NATO. The NATO alliance is still necessary. We must act together on all that and indeed if you look at the what happened over the last year's We found the solid idea. We see that decided. I'd have found very strong explosions and in particular between not only between Europe as a whole and the United States but in particular between France and the United States, we were side by side with you on the war in the Gulf. We Are Soldiers went together to Somalia. We are working in Yugoslavia where we have five thousand French soldiers and Gage under the UN flag. And by the way, I would like to point out that my country is presently the the greatest contributor in terms of number of soldiers engaged in all the peacekeeping operation the UN peacekeeping operation globally over the world. So this solid itay is not just a kachra for catch word for speeches, but it is a concrete day-to-day reality. We think that each of us has a stake in the success of the other because of this solid idea because of this globality. We have a strong a great stake in the success of of the United States of the economic and social success of the United States. We have been saying in Europe for years that the United States must take care of is budget deficit. For example, you are trying to do it. We wish you well. We hope that you will succeed. It is very important for the global economy. We think also that you have a stake in the success of European Unity. Maybe there are things among these very ambitious program that we gave ourselves for the Maastricht treaty and all that. There are things may be that some of you I don't like to match this story about common defense of the Europeans this currency a single currency. Some of you find that either realistic or unnecessary and you're not always have a full comprehension for what we try to do but let us let us assume that globally you you you wish you wish the success of our Enterprise why because there is a problem of stability in Europe overall the whole of the European continent you are attached to that. It's essential for the United States stability of Europe big bigger crisis worse bigger catastrophes in Europe would be so detrimental to you politically and economically and what I what I submit is that every time the process of European Unity inside the community and around the community is is going forward. It is a plus not only for the situation of the countries of the euro. In community, it is a plus for the stability of Europe over all of the whole European continent and conversely each time. There is an obstacle drawback in this drive towards European integration. It encourages division it further anguish and anxiety and it reinforces all the divisive factors not only inside the community but on the continent over so we we want a better comprehension of this solidarity and we think that France which is a the oldest Ally of the United States and which has been at the same time at the first rank in promoting. The idea of European integration is particularly in a good position to conduct this dialogue with the United States and to make for better understanding between In the United States and Western Europe as a whole and it is in this Spirit. If I'm a note in conclusion that my president will be coming to Washington Tuesday where he will meet you will meet with President Clinton to discuss all these problems and I'm sure you will agree with me in Wishing them. Well, thank you very much. (00:26:12) Thank you. Mr. Ambassador. You're listening to Ambassador Jacques andreotti, the French ambassador to the United States speaking to the Minnesota meeting and to the Minneapolis st. Paul French American Chamber of Commerce on the station's of Minnesota Public Radio. We have a first question. Mr. Ambassador from one of our Minnesota meeting board of directors at directors. Steve salyer. Mr. Ambassador two years ago fear of a fortress Europe was widely expressed in this country today. This worry seems to have diminished for reasons of recession questions of popular support for the Maastricht treaty and active Steps By Us corporations to enter European markets. Could you share with us? What worries Europeans and the French in particular may have about access to American markets in the Years just ahead especially given the emergence of a North American Trade Agreement and what steps European firms are taking to offset the effects of a more integrated American Market. Well, (00:27:14) frankly, I understand the question, but I don't think that the problem of access to the United States Market is linked in any major way to the creation of the establishment of the of the naphtha of the of the of the North American free trade zone. I think there are I think let's be let's be fair. The United States markets is is a very open market globally. It is very open market. There are problems. There are problems. As you know, in all countries. There are problems of regulations are problems of the attitude of some administration's there is this problem of the of the of the of the non-federal entities which which shall not considered as linked by the commitments taken by the federal government. For example, if you take procurement, we have a problem there with the sub Federal entities with the states or the or the cities. There are various things like that, which can be dealt with and we try to deal with them in in international negotiations are limits on some types of access to finance. As you know, in some fields are civil aviation or as as idea or education you cannot you cannot perform if you have are not US citizens, so it's not entirely entirely clean but I mean, these are things exist in our country. We have to work on these I mentioned a point for example the blur public procurement in European systems Telecom procurement for example is done by by state entities. So if you if we sign an agreement with a on public procurement, which is supposed to be open then you will you will have access to our to our attenders to our bids for example on the US side. It's private Enterprises and we say if these are private Enterprise Us but that they have a position of Monopoly. This should be linked also by the rules of fair procurement, but there is a dispute that these are there are many examples like that. So we have to solve all this and which does not does not detract in any way that from the general assessment that the u.s. Is very open market and it's indeed a great importer as you know, well the Free Trade Agreement the North American Free Trade Agreement, I think it's not it can it can create problems distortions in some areas, but I think that basically it is not an obstacle. (00:29:53) Thank you. Mr. Ambassador. We have a question now from Bob Froakie. Yes. (00:29:59) Mr. Ambassador Through The Years Francis had a very close relationship with Algeria. Could you comment briefly on the seat political situation there generally and specifically do you see the fundamentalist eventually taking over? What is it? It's a little embarrassing for an ambassador to talk about to talk about a situation in another country. But since this country so close to France. I can Venture a few observations. But the answer to your question is that we don't know. Of course, we don't know what the future will be the L Giants. I know very difficult situation. It's a crisis. It's a it's a political and social crisis and they are doing their best to to answer to that if you if you know, if you see Algeria as we know it, well, it is a bit bad oxy call that they should be engulfed in a fundamentalist Islamic mood because it is a it is an Arabic and Islamic country, which is very close to Europe which has been very very much the submitted to through France in particular to European influence and And and in which the the the link to the to Islam and to and to the event to the Arabic language was not so strong. So I think that the phenomenon is explained are explainable by this disguises of the society in Algeria, the failures of the preceding regimes and the fact that they have to turn to so there was something else too. What's up because but I don't know what will happen in the years ahead. Maybe the fundamentalist will gain further political victories, but I would I would I would I would Hazard that I would Hazard the prediction that in the very long term in a very great number of years. It will fundamentalism will not Prevail in Nigeria. (00:32:04) Thank you. Mr. Ambassador. We have a question here from Bob White. (00:32:08) Striped bass. Are you mentioned Francis contribution to the peacekeeping forces in former? Yugoslavia, many of us have a part of that kind of effort as with the Britain British and many (00:32:20) others (00:32:22) more countries are trying to do something through the UN the United States in the last few days as as a dropped supplies, apparently just in time to sustain the serbs as they overtook another town (00:32:35) all this is unfortunate, but and lots of us are saying these are good things that many countries are doing But Yugoslavia is a disaster it is and the say that everybody is trying hard is probably not enough. What else should be done? And what is the reason for whatever it should be done not being done is the failure of European Community or NATO will is (00:33:00) it a is that a failure by the (00:33:02) United States? I know you (00:33:03) said that we don't want to be engaged in figure pointy. But something is (00:33:07) going terribly terribly wrong and many of us would like to know what (00:33:12) Yes, but before before asking what should be done we should be in complete agreement as to what should be done for what what is our aim is our aim to bring about an agreement between these people these various factions and nationalities or is our aim to punish aggression. And in that case is aggression coming from one side only suddenly predominantly from one side, but exclusively from what sign is not sure I'm in the situation that the reason for what we've not been doing enough. It's that our aim is not entirely has not been entirely clear and even the US government now having some what I've been shed some doubts about the wisdom of the efforts of the of the of the European and the UN negotiators finally has has come to a position where there is not much difference. I mean There is there is there is an attempt under a way to bring about political settlement but by way of negotiation, so in that in that case either we succeed in bringing about the political settlement. And in that case, we all agree that I should be a massive military presence to enforce the settlement once it has been accepted by the parties and indeed the US government has even let it appear that to the presence of ground forces from the US would not be impossible in that case. So that's that's about it is but it is not the present I put it is the present day but it is that the position is that there is no agreement between the parties. So what can be done in particular with the use of military force? Very little we can we can contain we can we can prevent prevent military actions we can we can help humanitarian action. And that's what the is being done with by the by the air drops, but nobody I think is suggesting that we should use we should we should we should decide a full use of military force to obliged to constrain one party to accept an agreement which is not which is not prepared to accept now. I mean, some people are advocating that in the press for example, and now I'm the public but no government is prepared to use military force to oblige. Let's be clear to a branch to force the serbs to accept to withdraw from certain areas. And so (00:36:00) we have a question over here now from Phyllis Kahn. Mr. Ambassador, the problem of the subsidies of act to agriculture based also on the sentimental regard for the Family Farm And The Agrarian Heritage is not unique to France. It's a problem. That's also true in this country has France looked at one of the possible solutions, which I believe the economist called decoupling which is the support of the family farm or the family farmer with then up individually and directly and then letting the market then determine the rest of agricultural policy and the rest of prices instead of interfering with the market with with the subsidy Arrangement that only then indirectly reaches the farmer. (00:36:47) Well, thank you Father for the father for the advice but it is exactly what we have done. This is precisely what we this is precisely what we do with the reform of the common agricultural policy of the Common Market. We have we have we have decided to go over by stages of As we cannot do that overnight but to go over to a system of support which is more which is closer to which looks more like the American the American system. So that's exactly what we do in fact and to support the to to withdraw or to diminish drastically price support and and the in our system explosives. It is just a consequence of price support because it's the difference between between the inner market price support the sustained by Price support n the international prize. So we have been doing that complement a compensating compensating bio sort of support to income of the feminist. And as I told you I think in great part is problem of the subsidies is is Seto what remains is that? We did not do away entirely all together with a subsidy it Means it remains our self done quantity, which is treated with the old system. You see for the time being it remains that and since since its this Remains the u.s. Tells us maybe you have cut down maybe even in a major way on your subsidies, but there are still subsidies are still severely damaged lower but there are still some relief. So you must cut down your export on these communities which are subsidized even even even weekly and that's why we don't agree. (00:38:38) Thank you. Mr. Ambassador. We have a question here from Ed Spencer. Mr. Ambassador. The wealthy countries higher standards of living are increasingly faced with the difficulty of absorbing or not absorbing large numbers of legal and illegal immigrants and refugees. We've had our problems here with Mexico Central America Haiti Cuba Hungary and so on Southeast Asia, From Vietnam Cambodia and Laos and now it appears to be a an increasing problem for the European Community particularly for Germany and France being two of the wealthier countries. And I suspect that your problems will be much greater than ours in the years ahead his people from the east and south push to the north and west would you talk a little bit about that problem is seen from France and perhaps comment on Germany and how you see the community dealing with this growing problem. (00:39:34) Yes. We will although United in a way of dealing a we need with its we have not the same constitutions have not the same legal requirement. But we we try to go in the same direction that is there is there are people who have immigrated and who are in legal standing and we won't touch them. We won't send them back. Of course. We we say as a matter of principle. We established a distinction. Between political Asylum and economic immigration we are bound as far as political Asylum is concerned. We are bound by the Geneva Convention. We have to accept it, but we have to see to it that there is not an abusive an abusive use of the pretext of political Asylum to to circumvent and to and to bring about immigrations which would be in fact economic and other cover political asylums Asylum and there are many problems there because we have for example to take care of that of the length of the of the of the review of the situation of people who apply for political Asylum. Can we keep them many years and then reject them. It's not so easy, you know, it's a difficult problem and then fight economic immigration. We see we don't want it. Don't want it and no more economic immigration and and we have to to enforce that and it is further Complicated by the fact that there is almost complete and there will be absolutely complete suppression of inner borders inside the community during this year during the city's present here, which means that if if a guy has entered one of the 11 countries, you will be obliged you will be free to enter any other countries. So this calls for a common policy among the the community contest on immigration on visas on the surveillance of the borders of the external borders and it is a it is a very difficult task that we are we are we are handling that we have no common Visa policy. For example, we have the same contest. We have a contaminant consultation. We have the same contrast from which we are asking for enter visa and and we will have a common body. The borders but it's a very heavy task and it's difficult one. And as you said particularly with Germany for people coming from the East and with France for people coming from North Africa and (00:42:17) Africa. Thank you. Mr. Ambassador. Our next question is from Dan Pearson. Mr. Ambassador in a few weeks. There will be an election in France and it's expected that the current socialist government may not be returned to power two related questions. Is there an effect on the on Francis position in the Uruguay round negotiations from the current political campaign and second if a new government is elected, would you expect to see any change in France's negotiating position for the Uruguay round? (00:42:52) It seems to be its two questions in one where the answer is categorically. No, I'm I'm convinced and and all the glaciers all the statements from the leaders of the political opposition are very clear. It is obvious that it is a consensus. It is National consensus and that for example, the rejection of the of the draft agreement on agriculture which was a which was made by the negotiators of European commission with the US government negotiated in December is is a common position of the opposition and the government and I don't expect any change. It should be societial for any for any new government to too common and suddenly accept something. Would you have a clearly rejected time and time and again before the (00:43:48) election? (00:43:50) And it is National consensus. I don't think it will be settled in that in that way by a unilateral concession of farms after the election as no no possibility of learning basically, basically the position will remain the same. No Illusion about that (00:44:09) Thank you. Mr. Ambassador. We have time for two more questions and a question here from Douglas Petty. Mr. Ambassador, you mentioned the difficulty in arranging for or arriving at a just trade dispute resolution process. However, I would like to ask what actions do you suggest that a country which has won a gat panel judgment should take when the country which is causing the injury to that country's to the original countries trade is not responding to that get panel judgment. (00:44:46) Well, if you issue issue by that allude to the dispute on oil seeds the Europe is quite true that the open Community was condemned twice by the biogas panel each time. We tried to it's time. We tried to Remedy by taking action only the action was not deemed sufficient by the US government Our obligation Our obligation and other get was not to take any specific action. It was to remedy the situation and we try to do that. So there is dispute on the substance and the problem and then when he's a panel there is dispute on the on the on the remedial action what remedial action should be taken. So now there was indeed there was indeed the imposition of sanctions or threat of sanctions by the by the US government and from the point of view of the US government this And be as you suggest well understood now for the future for the future the Dunkel paper that the last agreement on gas provides for for strengthening for strengthening of the mechanisms of settlement of disputes in particular in particular the conclusions of the get panels would be considered as accepted by the the overall ability than by the the whole of the of the member part of the of the parties of the members of the of the GATT, even if one of the parties to the dispute would not agree to the conclusion. So this is it is a strengthening of the of the of the mechanism and we are ready to accept that we are headed to accept that but we would like at the same time that something should be to be done to diminish the threat of unilateral sanctions by The concise will have them because the problem you see is that we we accuse of being a phosphorus Photoshop, but it is a fortress which was very much without weapons because we have no we have no 301 or Superior 301. We are very weak as a community because we are several States the interest are not the same. We are it's very difficult for us to retaliate and we are no good in waging a trade War. That's why we are more for for multilateral mechanism. (00:47:17) Thank you. Mr. Ambassador. We have time for one last question from Elizabeth sacks. Mr. Ambassador over the past number of years. We have viewed the German economy as the locomotive of Europe and the Deutsche Mark is The Benchmark currency and the bundesbank policies is very important worldwide. Do you consider now with the stress of integrating the East growing faster and larger than the seems to have been anticipated? And the German economy slipping into recession that the Frank and French monetary policy is going to succeed at take that leading position. Well, I think the but I (00:47:57) don't swell see I'm afraid of the what is it? What is there and what the question is because there is no need for a leader of our leading position. I mean, we're not we're not vying between European countries for a leading position. It it is something that has been a that has been in in the polemics into disputes about the master agreement the opponents to the agreement in France saying but Germany will be the leader of your but these things has no more meaning. I mean they are the intermingling of the economic interest is such that it doesn't mean much you see we're all together. We are linked together. We why do we expose so much that there was the East Germany we expose so much to visit Germany because because it is the it is the German subsidiaries of our companies were exposed to East Germany. I mean all that is completely mixed and there is no need to decide who is the leader and who is not we have we have a desire of for apportionment for nearing our closing together of the of the of the of the economic policies of the various countries of the continent. If you take if you take a long if you take a long presentation, if you if you look long term at the curve of the economic policies of the countries of the Common Market, you'll see that from the beginning of the Common Market until now there has been a constant overall, although there might have been a tempeh incidents, but I have been very large movement or words. Unification there was harmonization that our economic policies and our economy criteria less diverse less different than they were 30 years ago. They were less diverse. It has going it has being in progression that our economic policies are more alike and our economic parameters have been more like overall and then over the last two or three years since the unification of Germany and since the economic slowdown all over the world this tendency towards approachment of the economic policies and economic parameters has has seized and we have now a situation when there is more divergency. We hope it is a it is a temporary temporary solution and that's the to over long-term Trend will Detour was a parchment of our policy so that we can have a common economic policy in a common currency and we still believe very much that it is true. So in these against this background again, this Prospect the question of whether France is in the lead or the United Germany is in the leaders is forcefully relevant. Thank you very much. Mr. (00:51:10) Ambassador.