Interview with Thomas Guénolé, Political Scientist and Writer

1. Emmanuel Macron attributed the rise in fuel prices to the war in the Persian Gulf. To what extent do you find this explanation justified and credible?

President Macron is right on this point: the massive increase in fuel prices is primarily caused by the Israeli-American war of aggression against Iran.

 

2. Could the continuation of this war worsen inflation and further increase the cost of living in France?

Yes. In fact, this is already happening. To a large extent, the overall rise in prices in France is due to oil, whose price is increasing because of the war in Iran. Oil is both the foundation of our goods and freight transportation system, the main non-nuclear energy source for households and production facilities, and also the main component of enormous economic sectors, such as the plastics industry.

 

3. Do you consider the police response to the October demonstrations, particularly the reported incidents of violence, to have been proportionate?

Absolutely not. High school students having their hands torn off, LBD rubber bullets fired directly into people's faces, grenades thrown at demonstrators from a balcony, and waves of tear gas deployed against peaceful protesters, including hundreds of thousands of minors: none of this constitutes proportionate or legitimate use of force.

The police must allow peaceful demonstrators to march—which means virtually all of them—without harassing or assaulting them with tear gas, LBD rubber bullets or batons. They must use legitimate force only against rioters and looters, and even then, solely to restrain them and place them under arrest. This was the approach adopted by the Villepin government during the major high school and student demonstrations against the CPE (First Employment Contract), and it worked very well.

 

4. What consequences could these interventions have for the right to demonstrate and for citizens' trust in institutions?

The overwhelming majority of today's young people, roughly those aged 15 to 25, will probably remain viscerally anti-police and viscerally committed to the freedom to demonstrate for the rest of their lives. The same is true of a significant proportion of their parents' generation.

French people's trust in institutions is already at rock bottom, except for healthcare and protective institutions such as hospitals and the military, and local institutions such as mayors. It is therefore unlikely to change much, but only because it has already hit rock bottom.

 

5. You participated in the Global Sumud Flotilla with the aim of breaking the blockade of Gaza. In light of this experience and your arrest, how do you assess France's response to the blockade of Gaza and violations of international law? Do you believe the French government's position and actions match the gravity of the situation?

President Macron made a courageous and historic decision: he recognized the existence and independence of the State of Palestine on behalf of France. Even Jacques Chirac had not gone that far. For this, he has my sincere gratitude.

More broadly, France under Macron has taken several other just and useful measures. It has banned Israeli companies from having exhibition stands at French arms fairs, such as the one at Le Bourget. It has closed its market to Israeli exports produced in West Bank settlements. It has banned several terrorist settlers and the most genocidal ministers, such as Ben Gvir, from entering French territory. It has suspended the sale of military equipment that could be used in the genocide of the Palestinian people.

However, compared with Spain, where I will be travelling in a few weeks for the BDS Europe summit in Barcelona, France has not yet done enough to support the Palestinian people.

France must completely halt its purchases and sales of military equipment to Israel. It must close its airspace and ports to Israel. It must demand the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which includes a clause requiring respect for human rights—a requirement that, as far as I know, does not include committing genocide.

More broadly, France must place Israel under an embargo: it must stop selling anything to Israel and stop buying anything from it for as long as colonization, apartheid and genocide continue. This is what France did to South Africa during the apartheid era.

 

6. As the next electoral milestones approach, what political and social future do you envisage for France?

I hope I am wrong, but I believe Marine Le Pen will be elected President of the Republic and will secure an absolute majority in the National Assembly.

Consequently, if we look at Western countries where the far right is already in power, demonstrators will face even greater violence, police brutality will go even further unpunished, and racist police officers will enjoy even greater impunity. There will be large-scale roundups of undocumented migrants and detention camps. Non-white immigrants will face administrative persecution. Racial discrimination will intensify throughout French society: in recruitment, housing, bank loans, insults and physical attacks.

Women's right to abortion will be partially challenged. There will probably be a referendum to reinstate the death penalty. The French justice system will be brought into line, meaning placed under political control. Public broadcasting will undergo an ideological purge. Independent left-wing media will face administrative persecution. Trade union freedoms will be attacked, the right to strike will be challenged, the arts will be censored, and school history curricula will be rewritten from a far-right perspective.

 

7. How can we explain why European governments, despite their stated climate objectives and commitments, continue to support military policies and conflicts with enormous environmental costs? Isn't this a fundamental contradiction?

The level of military spending is, in itself, completely absurd. Take nuclear arsenals, for example. Their combined destructive power is equivalent to wiping out all life on Earth approximately 40 times over. Have you ever heard of anything more absurd?

Without even entering into the debate over a total ban on nuclear weapons, reducing all nuclear arsenals by at least a factor of ten, with a minimum threshold of just one warhead, would be nothing more than basic common sense.

And it is entirely achievable. Donald Trump has publicly stated several times that he is willing to negotiate a new partial nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia and China, along the lines of the START agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Those agreements expired this year without being renewed. This is criminal stupidity.