E.I.R. GmbH

French Presidential Election:
Cheminade Campaign Breaks out

The following interview was done for EIR on February 3, 2012, with Jacques Cheminade, the former President of „Solidarite et Progres“ .

Jacques, I would first like to say that all your friends abroad, in the U.S., in Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, were very happy to hear that you had announced you had 500 pledges from mayors to endorse your candidacy for President (cf. French Presidential Campaign: Jacques Cheminade Rocks French Political Scene... Again!). This should provide a crucial flank in the overall strategic situation, as your program and warnings go out in the media.

Well, this is only the beginning; we should not be too euphoric about it. But what's interesting is that the reactions are not of the same type as they were in 1995 [when Cheminade ran for the presidency for the first time]. There are some persons who are trying to launch defamatory accusations, but many people react immediately by supporting us. They recognize that I was the victim of a terrible injustice in 1995 and that the time has come to let me speak out, because I was the only French political leader who announced that a crisis would break out in the next ten to twelve years, and 12 years later, it did.

So the mayors appreciate that very much. They gave me their pledge, officially called a "presentation promise" because they see that I was right, and the others were wrong. Moreover, they saw that the young activists who came to see them were very determined, had a good deal of humor, and were actually defending a cause, rather than repeating phrases or things that had been dictated to them.

They were creative, and respected the mayors. They did not approach the mayors as simple "machines to produce signatures", but as human beings with whom they wanted to conduct a real republican dialogue.

We have had quite a lot of media coverage, although it shouldn't be overestimated. On Canal Plus, for example, a well-known journalist, Jean-Michel Aphatie, said that my candidacy was totally useless, and he repeated it several times, but that completely discredited him. He was strongly attacked afterwards, Many people were disgusted with how rude he was, and they thought I did very well in responding to him. They liked the fact that I called into question the "incompetent oligarchy" which has put France into financial receivership, with the help of the “state nepotism structures”. There was a buzz about that on Internet. In fact, Internet is changing part of the campaign.

There were also attacks, for example from a Socialist Senator, Patrick Mennucci, who said on RMC (Radio Monte Carlo) that I was anti-Semitic, from the far right, and that I regretted the death of bin Laden. It was so stupid that people can only laugh about it. But I asked [Socialist Presidential candidate] François Hollande to have Mr Mennucci withdraw his accusations, because they are false. And this morning, the same RMC allowed me a right to answer, and during five minutes, I demolished the slander of this moron. A journalist from the radio said that he himself had been affected by the rumor, then checked out our website, and saw absolutely nothing related to anti-Semitism or right-wing extremism.

Are the journalists generally interested in the solutions you propose in the current crisis? Or are they trying to silence the debate?

I have been asked what the difference is between what François Hollande proposes and my proposal, because he is also calling for a separation of banking activities. But he proposes that those activities remain under the same roof, while I say they must be different banks, under a law of the type of the Glass-Steagall or what we had in France after the Liberation.

I have been asked who else in France thinks that way. I answered, Maurice Allais, for example yesterday morning. It was one of his most constant proposals, and he approved of my approach, and that of Mr. LaRouche. Some counter that Lyndon LaRouche is a heretical figure. I say, I'm glad he is. Anyone who attacks the financial oligarchy and the City of London is labeled, by all those who follow their policy line, a sulfurous figure. This is to be expected, because we are in the midst of a combat, and no holds are barred when it comes to us....

At first, I did have a chance to bring these issues up. But the journalists mainly want to know why I'm running, how I got the mayors to sign. That is the big question being asked: how I got the signatures, whereas Marine Le Pen doesn't have them....

There's a tremendous buzz around this issue – that I managed to get the signatures, and the others didn't. I explain that it's because of our young activists, and their qualities, because I had forecast the crisis that was coming, and also because of the international character of my campaign, the opening in which domestic policy and foreign policy, international policy are a unity, it's not limited to simple crisis management.

Another important point I bring up, is that a Presidential election today is assessed in terms of costs of the program proposed. Everybody is asking “how much does it cost”, but nobody sees it in terms of benefits. People speak in accounting terms, rather than having a vision and projects for the future. But today, we need to speak of the future, because the situation is such that we have to change the rules of the game....

On economic policy, is your position on the euro quite unique compared to the other candidates?

Yes and no. It is not, insofar as Marine Le Pen has a line which is similar to Dupont-Aignan. They are both against the euro. But what I say is that the euro is already destroying itself in any case. So what we need is a great project for the future. And that's where the really major difference comes in. It's on the issue of productive credit, and great projects for the future. We need a Glass-Steagall to clean out the “Augias stables”, to begin with, and productive state credit. In that way, Europe becomes meaningful, and can be integrated into a world of great infrastructure works.

But for that to happen, we have to repeal Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, and repeal the French law of August 4, 1993, which abrogated the law of January 3, 1973, which prohibits the Banque de France from advancing credit or from buying the debt of the Public Treasury in order to finance economic development. And the law of May 12, 1998, which prohibits the Banque de France and Board members from taking orders from the government, or from any other authority (1). So the Banque de France has become a central bank, instead of a national bank.

In France, there is now a big debate on the issue of a national bank. There are a number of articles on leaving the euro, but I insist that it should be a positive exit from the euro, and not for the fun of it.

There's another important point: the attacks against Germany. People say, “Merkel is Germany”. I reply that that has nothing to do with my vision of Germany, which is that of Schiller, of Heine and of Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Interesting is that my campaign, as Lyndon LaRouche pointed out, is producing in Europe a rift in the agreement on going for austerity and rigor. And from that standpoint, it is useful that François Hollande attacked the world of finance, even though the attack is limited, and denounced austerity and rigor. But he did not back that up with the measures to be taken, as I do. So I find myself in a position of avant-garde of all this....

So, all of this is going on. For the moment, I haven't been able to develop the real issues too much, except for the Glass-Steagall and state credit. And when I bring up the danger of war, everybody is astonished in the world of the media.

So, we're not yet in the heat of the race, but we've come out of the starting blocks. We've got our foot in the door, and now we have to get the most important part out, way up, that is all of the ideas.

(1) The 1973 law forced the state to borrow from private financial institutions taking interest on the loans, whereas the Banque de France, a state bank, did not take interest. The 1998 law turned the Banque de France into an entity independent from the state, with the task of ensuring monetary stability and not economic development. And the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU prohibits central banks from loaning interest-free money to the member states.

Weitere Meldungen

Top

Schiller-Institut e.V.

Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität

LaRouche Political Action Committe

EIR Online

Impressum