A diplomat and a writer, in 1990 Montassier was named a minister plenipotentiary of France following a career that included postings in the cultural, diplomatic and civic fields. During his career, he has served in various high level functions within the French cultural ministry and at the Quai d’Orsay, after which he became the Consul General of France in Zurich. Montassier currently heads his “Think Tank,” crisscrossing Europe to feel the mood of the continent, and help influence its future. DT sat down with Montassier on a recent visit to Budapest to discuss the issues now facing Europe, the concept of the “European mosaic,” and how “Old Europe” and “New Europe” can bridge their economic divide.

Europe is in a period of self-reflection and in some ways re-inventing itself given the new threats that it faces. At the same time , the international political arena also faces acute challenges. We have seen terrorist attacks in Europe, including those in Russia recently which threaten to shake Europe’s stability. European cooperation with the US has also seen difficult times in recent months. Do you feel the gravity of threats increasing?

GÉRARD MONTASSIER I believe that you have to distinguish two things. On the one hand you have terrorism, and on the other hand, the troubles and conflicts that are occurring in the Middle East, in Palestine and in Iraq. When we talk about terrorism, there are several kinds and the specific one that you are alluding to are the dramatic events in Madrid as well as those thatoccurred recently in southern Russia. To fight that kind of terrorism, I would say there are two kinds of responses. The first consists of Europe helping governments, and Muslim nations that want to modernise themselves. What you must see is that terrorism is primarily a civil war between Muslims themselves. It is between those who seek to adopt modern, Western styles of life, and those that consider that their traditions should be maintained and are against these modern ways.

The first political choice, therefore, consists of supporting and encouraging those who seek to modernise Islam. Naturally, it is a long-term solution and is the real solution to the problem of terrorism. But, at the same time we must be protected. It is clear that it is not the army or a military that will protect us from terrorism, but a specialised police and intelligence service.

I must say that even when Europe was profoundly divided on the Iraq issue, never did security services cease to collaborate. Even in the most tense moments, while some believed that it was necessary to support the Americans while others - like Germany and France believed that a military operation was an error - cooperation was never threatened.

I attribute this to a certain number of high-level officials in French security services who always provided the US, and received information that was available to them. Because of such collaboration we were able, in Europe and notably in France, to avoid a certain number of potential terrorist attacks that were prepared. Those whose brainchild it was were arrested before actually committing their crimes. But, I must say that in France we were close to succumbing to attacks of a similar scope to those suffered by our Spanish friends.

You talk about remaining open and helping Islamic governments who are open to change. But is the problem we face is less with open regimes, but with governments not necessarily open, and are perceived to be a threat to Western security?

GÉRARD MONTASSIER Let us begin by supporting those that are open, and let us show the Muslim public opinion that we firmly support and assist those that seek to modernise themselves. To modernise themselves means to build on the economic level, which will bring an increase in prosperity and a decrease in misery. This also means to modernise on a societal level, meaning to have more liberty both for men and for women, and to have a better education. These are the kinds of changes that must be supported and developed.

RELIGIOUS REFERENCES were banned from the public service and from schools by France. This is partly the result of lessons learned following religious conflicts in the past, Montassier claims.

I think that we, Europeans, have a certain responsibility most notably because of our immediate surroundings. The Americans are very far away from the Muslim world while for us, they are our neighbours. And we must not forget that part of our society is Muslim. I believe that we have a particular responsibility vis-a-vis two important regions. One is the Maghreb - being Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. The other, being Turkey. I believe that it is important to tell them that today there is no question about them entering the European Union (EU) because their governments, economies and political choices are too far from ours. Meanwhile, if they want to embrace us they will certainly be more than welcomed. But this necessitates different steps. It is a question of principle and perhaps even a generation or two. History accelerates, meanwhile. It presupposes that they educate their children to speak our languages, to discover our political, economic and social systems. At that point, we can easily consider that these people would be our fellow citizens.

You speak of Europe respecting a mosaic, openly accepting a divergence of ethnicities and citizens that maintain their origins even after having been adopted within Europe itself. The question that has been hotly debated of late is the right of Muslim children to attend school in their religious attire. Are these two concepts in conflict?

GÉRARD MONTASSIER No. You must understand that if we the French believe in the concept of secularity it is because we belong to a nation that was literally torn apart as a result of religious conflicts. In our country, religious wars were held throughout our history until the 19th century. But even at the beginning of the 20th century, there were religious tensions in the public opinion of the French Catholics, Protestants and the Jews. The French Revolution attempted to bring an end to these historic rifts but was not able to fully do so. It was in the end of the 19th century that we decided, very clearly, that neither in public service, nor in schools would there be the introduction of religious references. This was decided in schools to ensure that children would be outside the sphere of religious quarrelling, because we believe that when children become adults they have the opportunity to make their own choices. Similarly, this was also decided in the public service sector because we believe the state should not be a participant of the religious sphere. The state should be not be partisan toward any particular religion. We impose these regulations in schools and within the state apparatus. Everywhere else, they have total liberty.

There are various pillars of government within the EU - local, national or supranational. How easy will it be to create harmony and a strong Europe within these different levels of government? How will local customs and laws in member nations be respected, all while living under the EU flag? And how can we create a vision of Europe that has a consolidated foreign policy able to resonate as one voice in the world?

GÉRARD MONTASSIER We must understand that the EU has limited competences. It is also quite clear that in questions of transportation, environment and economy it is necessary to have coordinated action on an EU-level. This is also true in certain aspects of defence issues. Europe now has a more clearly-defined framework in its constitutional treaty. It is understood in the constitution that national governments will also play a role in the EU. They must play a role because they are the expression of the democratic will of their public opinion.

This framework makes Europe, but this does not make Europeans. Our political system regroups about 550 million inhabitants, and includes 25 - and later 27 or 30 countries - all with very different traditions. We have to approach things very differently. How? On the one hand we must multiply the politics of integration, which means to develop similar political agendas. For example, in the case of transportation, all Europeans have an interest in being linked with, in the most comfortable fashion, to other Europeans. In the case of energy, we all need it to support our economies. In terms of education, the more complete and complex our students are, the better they know each other and the more European we will all become. All this without abandoning national traditions. There is no question about developing a melting pot of Europe, as we see in the United States. We rely on local traditions, as well as a European conscience and identity.

Hungarians are often preoccupied with internal politics. Dialogue with our European neighbours and international partners is less present in the national consciousness than often desired. How can we adopt a truly European outlook, from the perspective of the whole population?

GÉRARD MONTASSIER There are two answers. The first is time, since this is a problem for generations to come. I travel quite extensively in Europe and I see politicians, some of which are 70 or 80 years old, while others are 30 or 40 years old. And while they are both pro-European, their vision of Europe is not necessarily the same. On the one hand it is almost a sacred destiny of putting an end to wars and having organised cooperation among our nations. For those who are much younger, it would seem altogether natural to work with neighbouring countries.

In France and Germany, there is a social system propped up by high wages and benefits, while in the new EU states these higher wages are not a reality, which results in these countries remaining highly competitive. Where is the border between a society which disburses unrealistically high wages and benefits, versus a more competitive wage-scale with fewer benefits? With France and Germany loosing their competitive edge, will the new EU entrants unleash a kind of evening-out of salaries so Europe as a whole remains competitive?

GÉRARD MONTASSIER This is an extremely grave problem and the result is that different European nations are at different levels of development. There is no immediate answer to your question. There is only a progressive answer. It is quite clear that we will have to avoid solutions where we all end up losers.

Imagine for one moment that we say Hungary will have an excellent competitive advantage by maintaining low wages, and from this point of view French and German businesses would transfer their operations into Hungary. To this, there are two inconvenient facts. The French and the Germans would naturally lose jobs. But, an inconvenience for the Hungarians would be that French and German businesses would enrich themselves on the misery of Hungarians.

It is evident this is a problem that exists on an EU-level, because no one government can solve it. On the EU level it would be absolutely necessary that there be negotiations on the topic of Hungarians progressively achieving unification between social and fiscal systems. In the end, we will be able to achieve a common economic model. The objective, after all, is that all Europeans maintain the highest possible standard of living. This applies as much to the French as to Hungarians. By this, the French should have jobs, while the Hungarians should also benefit from higher salaries.

What struck you during your talks on this visit to Hungary?

GÉRARD MONTASSIER I was struck to see the anxiety with respect to the economic inequality, and that of an inequality of power. The fear to be considered as a little nation. The European family is an agitated family, one where we have disagreements, but one where we no longer fight one another. This is progress. And progress within Europe has been considerable. When Hungary will have had 10 or 15 years within this family they will then realise that within Europe there are not longer smaller or larger nations. No nation has the ability to have a totally independent foreign, economic or even social policy. This is over.