In his platform published in Défense nationale in April 2007, when he was still a presidential candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy said that he wished to see the creation of a presidential National Security Council which would become the single forum for analysis, debate and consideration of security and defence issues in both peace and times of crisis. The intention was that it would be adaptable to suit the circumstances and subjects under consideration, and that it would replace the existing councils for domestic security and defence. The Head of State would then have an overall view of the three main thrusts of our defence policy, which are homeland security, military defence and external action. This council would be supported by a permanent secretariat, which would plan its meetings and provide the necessary follow-up on the decisions taken. Mr Sarkozy emphasised that the council should operate as a forum for exchange of ideas between governmental authorities, major bodies and experts, and not as a group for resolving problems brought up by some limited committee. Such a council appeared to him essential in order for the President of the Republic to be in possession of all necessary expert opinion from both sides of an argument before taking his decisions.

This project for a National Security Council requires deep thought, given that what is at stake goes well beyond just the issues of domestic and external security and will put a stamp on the nature of the French political regime. The defence white paper committee, presided by Jean-Claude Mallet, a former Secretary-General of Defence, allows us to have sight of the strategic issues resulting from the new generation of threats and the assets that we have available to address them.

Threats

Since the end of the Cold War, terrorism and organised crime have undergone a change–they have become globalised and developed to a point where they now extend well beyond the somewhat limited and static, even retrospective, boundaries we once recognised. In criminal or terrorist matters, what seems new is in fact most often what we had forgotten. Within the realm of what we know, what we believe and what we are looking for, what we know is alas the smallest element. In the realm of crime, Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes declare that after the impossible has been eliminated, what remains–however unthinkable it might be–must be the truth. And yet, with regard to terrorism, before 11 September 2001 what was unthinkable was supposed impossible. Through inertia, weakness or fear of the reaction of higher authorities, the police and intelligence services were unable to deal with the unthinkable. And so the unthinkable became reality.