Monday, April 12, 2010

Sarkozy: The world is too dangerous. In my duty to protect my state, I could never give up nuclear weapons

Nicolas Sarkozy is the French-speaking George Bush. This is not coherent enough to even refute, but I'll leave it here so that it can speak for itself.
Couric: Under what circumstances would France agree to give up its nuclear weapons?

Sarkozy (translator): Well, France I said-- and I want to say this to American friends who probably don't-- in fact, they don't know this. We've stopped nuclear testing. We ratified a treaty. The Nuclear Test-- Treaty with the (UNINTEL). So, we closed our-- the sites whereby we-- which we used for launching. As a matter of fact, for launching nuclear weapons. We've announced how many nuclear warheads we have, which has been considerably drawn down.

I feel that if I were to go any further, I could go in fact jeopardize the security of my country, and as head of state, I-- I am the guarantor and guarantee of that security. Now, of course, with the United States, we are combating proliferation-- the-- the Iranian question just as the North Korean question is very worrisome. We will do everything we can to avoid and prevent nuclear pro-- proliferation. We support the drawdown of nuclear weapons-- but we need what we need in order to ensure the safety of our country.

Couric: Having said that, let me just ask you the question I asked you a few minutes ago. Not now, but down the road, maybe in many years, can you conceive of a nuclear free world?

Sarkozy (translator): Well, a virtual world where there would be no nuclear weapons, I think everyone would applaud that. But-- but I cannot jeopardize the security and safety of my country. You have to realize, we're a country of 65 million inhabitants. We have fewer conventional weapons than the U.S. and Russia and China, for that matter.

Now, I have inherited the legacy of the efforts made by my predecessors to-- build up arms as a nuclear power. And I could not-- give up nuclear weapons, insofar as I wasn't sure that the world is-- was a stable and safe place. What is the role of a head of state. To ensure the safety of his country-- and the fate of the citizens that have entrusted him with the task of being President. Which is why entirely recognize my thinking, and that-- of President Obama. So-- and I believe that President Obama said he probably wouldn't be around when the world is-- has divest itself of its nuclear weapons.

Couric: But do you think it's a realistic goal? And I won't ask you this again.

Sarkozy (translator): It's a dream. An awesome dream that can turn into reality. But I will not give up that nuclear weapon because it underpins my country's security. I will not do so on a unilateral basis, in a world as dangerous as the one in which we live in today.
Couric: What about a multilateral basis?

Sarkozy (translator): Yeah, my ties (UNINTEL) the U.S. and France are both democracies. We will never use these weapons in order to attack anyone. And you see that (UNINTEL) in that world as it is to them, that is why it is so important that the summit-- today are-- are so important. We need to put our heads together, we need to talk to one another, we need to be cautious. And that is my duty as head of state.
I'm not going to make the obvious points. I'll just move on to Sarkozy on Iran.
Couric: Let's move to Iran. You have very passionately advocated stronger sanctions against Iran. What exactly do you mean by stronger sanctions and to what end?

Sarkozy (translator): I consider the fact that Iran should get its hands on a nuclear weapon-- a military nuclear weapon, together with the many statements made by Iranian leaders against the democracy that is Israel is dangerous and unacceptable. Unacceptable, quite simply. President Obama has wanted to stretch out his hand in order to show clearly to the Iranians that it was not they who were the target, but their leadership.

He extended his hand in order to guarantee the unity of the international-- community in particular, but the security council, which I endorsed, but patience has its limits. And we have come to a time now where we need to vote sanctions. Not against the Iranian people, but against the leaders who are leading the country to the wall. The-- very idea that-- existing leadership should get its hands on a-- nuclear weapon is unacceptable.

No comments: