Le Pen: I am neither an anti-Islam, nor anti-Muslim/ Islam's grandeur and beauty impressed me/ France is turning into a unipolar society / The countries upholding the ISIS are the major enemies of France to which our country remain loyal/ France should negotiate with Iran in lieu of the Saudi Arabia
The Age of Reflection: The French terrorist attacks have raised many questions in the minds of political observers and intellectuals, and in addition to it, we see a development in the militarist policies in the heart of Europe. In a speech delivered by François Hollande before the Parliament, there seems to be a disposition of establishing a "police state"; a sort of strong security sovereignty which can destroy democracy. On the other hand, "security" is considered as one of the main needs of the human society, then the governments should take measures to provide it; but the question is whether it is not possible to maintain security without "death of the Republic"?
Marine Le Pen: It is an interesting question; Hollande declares a state of emergency in different situations, deploying a great number of military forces throughout the country. What do you personally think about it? It is only because he tends to show off the police and military power, and consequently prioritize them. President of the Republic and the security forces wield immense power according to the French Constitution of 1955 in order for them to take control of the society in a state of emergency; he just wants to hold on to his power, but there is always a state of emergency in France and the police forces are all put on alert. The police would, in such a condition, excuse any public assembly simply for no particular reason and then make arrests based on it as is it, nowadays, the case. Lots of citizens are arrested and imprisoned only because of their possible threats to the public security in spite of the strong oppositions expressed by some parties in the country.
Hollande is always claiming that he predicts threats of the terrorist and Islamist groups to France such as the ISIS, and therefore acts on the basis of such predictions. That is why, in France, the socialist party is now in power and free to act. It is axiomatic that formation of the groups like the ISIS is a product of the NATO military assistance to the Islamist groups in various countries. NATO was going to change the Syrian regime by providing such groups with the required equipment, but actually it has not changed thus far. The current situation in France is more or less similar to it. The recent attacks is the outcome of one thing: the dictatorial thought which is dominant in France and its military power which is ruling.
It is interesting that some consider you to be in close association with the Bonapartists, and assume that the National Front policies are an association of or in line with Napoleon Bonaparte's slogans. If this is the case, considering that you will rise to power, do you think we will not deal with a government having the militarist and dictatorial characteristic?
Your questions have a challenging and controversial tinge, nevertheless, I generally think Bonapartism will appear in France when the major crises start to be seen in the society, economics and politics. That is why Marx calls Bonapartism a "semi-authoritarian" front. It is the very movement enabling the middle classes to express themselves in crisis points and recognize their importance.
However, Hollande opposes my view. He claims that Bonapartism is a movement, in the French society, against the radical socialists! That is also a strange claim of Hollande. Do you know why? That some would consider me, as well, to be a Bonapartist as I do not want France to be dependent in the international assemblies and to act according to what the other countries do in the international level. I tend to select a rather different approach in the policies, and some say to me that this trend, in the 21st century, would result in a sort of political prestige for me and that I am struggling to promote myself to higher positions.
We are now living in a world in which politics are dictated by the international economy. Well, there is no go except for a new approach so as to determine political strategies. I think, in today's world, what saves France is formation of a strategic government, not taking into consideration various movements and thoughts to which you refer and force me into considering ourselves to be a supporter of them. Such a government can afford to save France from the current situation. Napoleon would say that, "neither a Republican nor an aristocrat; I am a Nationalist." General de Gaulle would always repeat that, "neither a Left nor a Right; I am a French", and today I say, "Neither a Left nor a Right". I personally think that any of these doctrines could be used in certain circumstances.
NATO military assistance resulted in the formation of ISIS.
You claim that, in today's world, the economic factors determine the policies. These factors, more often than not, are in accordance with the liberal models, and the US is continuously seeking to Americanize Europe as they have been trying to do so as for Iran. Do you propose a new way for the political and economic action other than this dominant liberal model?
I generally believe that sticking to the global liberal model of economics would cause trouble for the whole world and I am, absolutely, not thinking positively about this model. I believe, in the current situation, it would be better to keep to the "protective economy" policy in order to get out of the present crises; a policy for which both Sarkozy and Hollande have never striven. Liberalism is now on the verge of decline due to the idealist plans which are being carried out by the world powers. In my opinion, France needs a national and patriotic plan as it is not possible for the global ones to deal with the French problems in an efficient manner. I personally consider the very liberalism as the main cause of imminent demise of the French society.
There seems to be a very close association between liberalism and fundamentalism in today's world, and your country has heavily invested in upholding the Takfiri Salafis. Some people in Iran, still, do not believe that France is cooperating with and upholding the terrorists…
I should say I am sorry for being the first and only person, in France, to object to hosting the extremist groups, and in addition to it, I have never had a good opinion of providing them with education and financial aid within our country. I was the only one to realize that the "Charlie Hebdo" incident was addressed directly to the extremist groups, then I considered "the French Government" to be the main culprit. I assume that Hollande is widely upholding these groups, particularly having invested in such groups in Libya and Syria. He is now being punished and penalized for what he did before; it is the very issue I had predicted in the private and public meetings with Hollande.
I definitely condemn Hollande's policies regarding these areas, that is, upholding the extremist groups, and also I do condemn Sarkozy's previous policies. Look! The extremist groups operating in various countries are supported by the prominent capitalists in Europe. In my opinion, this is a moral, political and historical mistake of our leaders, therefore it is better for Europe to understand the significance of Bashar Assad's holding the power in the current situation. Inevitably one should be preferred between bad and worse.
How far does the situation keep on? How do a series of mistakes that you mentioned have the opportunity and possibility to be repeated? Although the Lefts are now in the French government in the name of socialism, but we have been faced with the phenomenon of "American Left" and the spread of liberal capitalism in France which seems to coexist, now, with a sort of fundamentalism.
I think that France is making lots of mistakes. I predict that France will eventually keep to this situation up until 2025, so this year is the point which the economic and political programs for the country will show up. France will survive ten years with regard to such situations. As you know, the liberality in the economy of a country is not dependent upon the liquidity of the trades; it depends on the competition between the economic structures of a society, restrictions to enter the economic sphere, the liquidity and the share of the public sector in the economy and the government's economic participation. In most cases, in France, privatization has helped the economy to emerge a kind of unipolar economy, and consequently it has helped it to become a part belonging to the government that is in power. It is the very thing to dismantle the economy and for the military fundamentalism to maintain, by force, the liberal economic system. I can claim that these events have happened in France.
Once the National Front you led, in the first round of elections in France, became the prime party, the media including BBC were struggling to induce the public to believe that in your party Islamiphobia replaces anti-Semitism since, in the current situation, this party has got a great influence over the public opinion. I want to get a clear answer. Have such propaganda designed to intimidate the Muslims into your party? Do you oppose the real Islam which is a harbinger of kindness and generosity, or that you oppose the Wahhabi Islam and Daesh? Are you anti-Islam or anti-Daesh or anti-Semitism, or all of them?!
Yes, it is the approach that the media have deal with and they are trying to do it more. Let me answer your question this way. Once I was invited, by some officials, in France, to visit their mosques. You know that Islam is the second religion in France, and that is why I felt obliged, as an official, to accept it. Many people expressed in the media that my visit to the mosque is more like a joke, but I went there and the alleged officials presented a book about Islam to me. When I studied that book, I felt I was understanding it more. I paid a visit to the mosque again and got another book; after reading it, I was really impressed with the grandeur and beauty of Islam, however, talking about my own feelings with respect to Islam persuades the media to reflect the reality the other way round. At any rate, the media require such circumstances.
Iran can afford to tackle most of the problems France is faced with in the region
I personally think that I do not take an anti-Islam or anti-Muslim approach at all. In one of my speeches I stated that I did not oppose any Muslim or Jew, but it was all greek to me the reason why they would not eat pork and what the Halal products meant. Again this speech was controversial in France, but I repeat once more that I do not oppose the Muslims any more. I win a great deal of votes from the Muslims in most of the elections I stand for; so this fact clearly shows the Islamic community's approach towards me. I personally believe the Jews, Muslims and Arabs should play a significant role in the French society. The French society is becoming a unipolar one, and the participation of these two groups would create a balance at last.
As for the names the Arabs and Muslims choose for their own children in the French society, of course I believe that it would be better to use the western names. I once stated the Arabs using the names like Rashid, Wafa and … their children, definitely, would face problems due to the certain circumstances in the French society. I recommend them to name their children after the western and French models in order for them to decrease the level of tensions. I once stated that eating pork is an appreciation of the French culture and traditions, and if they accept to do so, they can even participate actively in the National Party. This statement must not have backlashes against me. I just pointed to a cultural issue, but I was again criticized for it.
According to the Islamic Law a Muslim cannot accept your proposal, unless s/he violates his own beliefs; you have mentioned this issue for the political participation in your party, though. The main question raised at the moment is that if you, someday, found a way to hold the position in the Elysee Palace, could the Muslims be sure that you maintain their basic rights or would they be concerned that party-based approaches dominate?
Let me give you an example. I once stated that I opposed the extreme Islamists praying in the streets of France, and objected to it several times. Why? As it would deform and disfigure the society. We do have enough mosques for the Muslims in the French society in which they can pray, and such manners and intentions are just an extremist movement. Does it mean ignoring the basic rights of the Muslims? I have several times objected to the Muslim Brotherhood Members participation and activities in the French society. They have been doing secret activities in the European countries, particularly France, since the outburst of violence and breach in Egypt. They, I think, are the main source of an unlimited and extremist Islam that have defamed the Muslim community as well. I do object to such issues and will never take my word back.
If I were an anti-Muslim and ignored their rights, I would never let the huge wave of Syrian immigrants, who are mostly Muslims, to enter my country. However, I have always supported their taking shelter in France, realizing the fact that the ISIS terrorists benefit more from their presence in this country, so they are able to use this opportunity, but I am not president of the Republic; only Hollande can take control of some situations, not me. Anyhow I welcome, as a political figure in the French society, the Syrian and Muslim immigrants coming to my country.
Which countries, in your opinion, are the major enemies of France?
France must determine its exact policies in the international policies. It must determine its partners and enemies in the international diplomacy. I personally believe that its major enemies are the countries which go hand in hand with the extreme Islamists and are in close association with the supporters of the ISIS; the countries which support the racist Islamists, letting them engage in activities in their countries as well. These are the very major enemies of France with which, unfortunately, our country establishes relations. Any country that opposes activities of the Islamist terrorists and fights them is undoubtedly a friend of France, with which it should cooperate and conduct negotiations. But it is unfortunately vice versa as for France.
How do you, as president of the National Front who was able to form a government in some periods of time, analyze and evaluate the Islamic Republic of Iran and its importance in having an impact on the present equations?
I surely consider Iran as a regional power. I believe that France must change its foreign policies, and if it tends to fight the real terrorist, it should take Iran and Russia as its main allies. After the recent event in France, I recommended several times to negotiate with Iran over the issue of terrorism. This country can certainly help us very much regarding this problem. Iran has considerable influence in the region and can deal with most of our problems. If I were Hollande, I would take Iran as one of my friends and allies.
In my opinion, it would be better for France to conduct negotiations with Iran in lieu of the Saudi Arabia. I have, over and over again, claimed that the Saudi Arabia is spreading the "extreme Islam". Women in Iran have rather suitable conditions in comparison with women in the Saudi Arabia. The thoughts and presumptions we have of them is actually different from the reality. Woman's status in the Iranian society is so very different from what is in the Saudi Arabia which only boasts about the human rights. Iran can be a loyal friend for France in the international arena. I believe that the Iranian woman is even happier than any other woman in other the Middle East countries like Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.
As for the nuclear energy in spite of the French position, I have always wanted Iran to achieve the peaceful nuclear energy in order to move forward along with the global progresses. It is their right to be able to express themselves in this area in an international position, but I have never realized the reason why Hollande opposes this issue.
In my opinion, all the sanctions against Iran should be lifted at once as it has cooperated well with the international delegates, leaving no room for them to impose or keep sanctions. The only thing about which I have always been curious as for this country is the state of the prisons and prisoners, which I prefer not to talk about at this present moment, but I just want to say that I am not that much positive about the state of the prisoners in Iran.
Your viewpoints about Islam is favorable and promising for the Iranians, but the media propaganda have not allowed some of the French people to have access to them. What is your direct response to those calling you a "fascist"?
I do not really know what to say. Such claims came to prevail when, in a speech some years ago in Lyon, I stated that occupation was not necessarily done using armor and weapons. As we are speaking of religion and some followers of a religion (the Muslims), whom I think they are the extremist Muslims, march on the streets, close the roads and pray there, it means that they are occupying my country. I said that the Nazis were also using this method, so that is why they tended to call me a fascist. Even I was summoned to the court for it; I said that I did not have the intention of insulting Muslims. I just criticized and objected to what the extremists were doing, not Islam and Muslims.