Valery Giscard d'Estaing

It has happened in the past that the United States and France experienced divergences in the field of foreign policy. In other circumstances -- in 1796, 1917 and 1944 -- they have joined in common and tightly intertwined forms of action. This should be the case today. The events call for a solidarity without fail.

The emotion felt by the French people concerning the plight of the people of New York and Washington was not superficial. They were intensely concerned about the events and horrified by the image of planes, filled with passengers, turning to crash into the towers. And they were touched beyond expression by the rush of the firemen and the young first-aid workers into the building, in an attempt to save lives, at the cost of their own. Indeed, the people of New York were superb! Now this emotion must be followed by political solidarity for the challenge that lies before us, a solidarity without flaws or bickering.

Some points need to be clarified. To be precise, we are not actually entering a state of war. A war would mean that we are bound to participate in a clash between regular armies, or a confrontation between two groups of nations. To accept this would be to play into the hands of the terrorists, who were moved by their hatred of the United States but also by the calculated will to increase the level and the dimension of the conflict.

The aim of our future action should be this: identification and destruction of the terrorist networks in a way that will make it impossible to renew such attacks, whatever the technique employed. This means that the logistics of those networks should be eradicated, including the groups and structures that provide them with protection, resources or training facilities. This will probably lead to limited ground operations, around places and locations that need to be precisely identified, to avoid the risk of dispersion and hiding. The use of airstrikes does not seem sufficient to attain this goal.

This destruction of terrorist networks must not be conceived and stated as a neo-crusade of the industrialized countries against the Muslim world. It so happens that the moderate Islamic states suffer from the same vicious attacks; remember the fate of President Anwar Sadat of Egypt. This is the reason why calling a meeting of the G-8 nations, to assess the situation, would be utter nonsense.

A major difficulty will arise from the fact that to destroy the terrorist networks, action must come before the crime is committed, which is contrary to our judicial culture. This problem does not exist, of course, in the case of the attack of Sept. 11. But this contradiction will not make it impossible either to suppress the other networks or to dismantle the preparation of new attacks. For this, some legislation will probably be needed.

Must the United States act alone or jointly with its allies? A joint action is clearly preferable, and that is why Article 5 of the NATO treaty has been invoked. A joint action supposes some form of action in concert or, at the least, sharing of information. In the present case, the nature of the operation, which presupposes an intense intelligence work, and total surprise, makes it all but impossible to carry out the classical forms of consultation. It means that the concerted action should be concentrated within the highest level of leadership in the countries that will take part in the action.

They must, together, carefully assess the political reactions that will be triggered by their action, immediately as well as in the long term, and the ways to gain support, or at least acquiescence, of the moderate Islamic states. They must also try to eliminate the present tensions, which provide a fertile soil for the development of terrorism, and address the most difficult issue, which is for the United States to move from a de facto situation of dominating power, which increases antagonism and envy, to a posture of mutual acceptance and search for consensus.

They must also bear in mind that the coming action must respect our common values of responsibility, and regard for justice. These values are our heritage, and do not give us a cause for dispute. There could be circumstances that call for discussion between us, and even for some difference of viewpoint. But these are times for solidarity and joint action.

When the most horrible means are used to destroy people and shatter the world where they live, when America is struck in its flesh and blood, we must demonstrate a strong, determined and practical solidarity, to hit the organizers and conspirators and to prevent the return of such aggression. This is a time for solidarity.