Can we still expect, just a short time before the presidential elections, to hear the presidential candidates talk about serious matters, of the competence of the next president? This is doubtful, when we see how they avoid speaking so far about any foreign policy issue, which will occupy yet more than half the time of the candidate who will be elected, and the complacency with which they extend on the problems of security or taxation, which are obviously of government and parliamentary responsibility, and whose parties will have ample time to debate during the campaign that will follow with the legislative elections.
In the next five years the world will obviously be very dangerous, and we need to know what the next president will do to meet these challenges, which, in the absence of answers from the candidates, we can at least make the list.
First, in Europe, we will not be able to do, in the next five years, without the federal issue. Specifically, the euro will not be able to continue to exist in its present form without a growth policy, which is only within the reach of a federal European entity, securing fiscal resources to finance it. The candidates virtually said nothing on this. For example, if there is a federal entity, will it concern the 27? Or only members of the Eurozone? Or another entity? And if there is no federal entity, how will we withstand the growing difference of economies sharing the same currency? Are we willing to put an end to it?
In Europe still, will it be necessary to extend the Union beyond the current Croatian candidature? To whom? To all the countries of the former Yugoslavia? Moldova? Ukraine? Georgia? Armenia? Turkey? All these questions will be raised before 2017. It would be good to know the opinion of the candidates.
On defense, also, many questions will be addressed: should we acquire new nuclear submarines? Drones? Should we deepen the integration of France into the integrated command of NATO? Should we therefore join the missile defense plan, and thus scrap our nuclear submarines? Or should we stay away from this project? What tasks should we entrust NATO after its withdrawal in 2012 or 2013, from Afghanistan? Should we get NATO involved in the problems of Asia? The Mediterranean? The Middle East? Maghreb? Mali? Otherwise, what should be done for the security and stability of Africa? Everything, at the risk of appearing to be a neo-colonial power? Or nothing, at the risk of seeming to bless a questioning of the borders drawn by the Berlin conference in 1885? Finally how to address Islamic terrorism? And facing its alliance with drug-traffickers?
In addition, what needs to be done to address the issue of Russia? Strongly oppose its anti-democratic tendencies or take it as it is, into a partner for stability in Europe? And regarding China, should we follow the lead of Americans, who see China as the main enemy in the coming decades, or rather provide ourselves with the means to make it a responsible and balanced ally?
Finally, should France get involved in all these problems or should it resign itself as being one middle power, with no means to act on major world issues?
On all this, the day after his election, the next President will have to decide: he is expected on 18 and 19 may 2012 at the G8 summit meeting at Camp David, then 20 and 21 May at the Summit of NATO in Chicago. He will have to take positions on each of these issues. Wouldn’t it be reasonable that voters be informed in advance about it?