by Uzi Eilam
When I grew to know Dr. Chaliand better, I came to understand how the history of his people had had a decisive impact on his path in life. He had spent more than 15 years in terrorist training camps in Libya and the Lebanon Valley, not to mention the training camps that sprouted up throughout Afghanistan during the 1980s. He had developed an explicit sympathy and support for these terrorist groups, to which he insisted on referring as “freedom fighters”. Chaliand was a prodigious author, and his books included titles such as Guerrilla Strategies; The Atlas of Diasporas; A People without a Country: The Kurds and Kurdistan; and The Art of War in World History. Although he and I had many arguments, we remained friends and I admired his independent thinking, his ability to encompass broad issues without lapsing into shallowness, and his capacities as a writer and speaker.
General de Saint-Germain had hopes that transcended our study of non-conventional terrorism, which started to take shape at FRS and the Israeli research institutions concurrently. The French were intrigued by the IDF and the Israeli defense establishment due to their unique technological accomplishments, and I was immediately accepted by the think-tank’s senior faculty members. Our meetings, which focused primarily on lectures and reports, also included the non-formal component of group lunches in the campus cafeteria. Saint-Germain went to great lengths to enable me to take part in the discussions, and initially made sure to speak slowly and clearly so that I could understand his French. For me, every group meal was a double test: first, of my ability to address the substance and questions raised by my colleagues on issues that were still only in outline, and second, of my ability to communicate in French. From the outset, I insisted on speaking only in French, which was difficult at the beginning. During our conversations we planned a program that consisted of a series of lectures in which I would share Israeli perspectives on strategic, tactical, and technological issues with FRS faculty members and their guests. Saint-Germain asked me to prepare a list of subjects for the lecture series, and made clear intimations that the faculty would be particularly pleased if I would also address the nuclear issue. I deftly dodged the nuclear issue by not including the subject on my proposed list of lectures.
My lecture topics included: the American Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) as seen through Israeli eyes, technological trends and their effects on the battlefield of the future, the war of information, and the challenge of maintaining technological capacities in an environment of budget cuts. After FRS publicized the topics as part of its “Working Breakfast” lecture series, there was no turning back. I had no choice but to adopt a regime of lecture preparation. My French teacher, Dominique Cottard, was forced to roll up her sleeves and go over the papers I wrote in French during the process of preparing my lectures.
FRS breakfasts were widely attended by the personnel of various government agencies, from the DGA — the development and acquisition body of the French Defense Ministry, through the Strategic Department of the Defense Ministry, to the CEA, the French Atomic and Alternative Energies Commission. Every hour-long lecture was followed by another hour of questions and answers. I was always prepared for the lecture section of the meetings, but I was unable to prepare myself for the Q&A, during which those in attendance would ask questions in a straightforward and unbiased manner, showing no mercy. Saint-Germain sat next to me, and sometimes helped me by more clearly rephrasing the questions asked.
The research on non-conventional terrorism was still underway when my sabbatical year came to an end, but I did not let the researchers at FRS and the two research centers in Israel rest until the work was complete. During the study the French team made visits to Israel, which were joined by Saint-Germain himself, and the Israeli researchers made two trips to Paris. At the end of the study two classified reports were written — one in France and one in Israel — and distributed to the two governments. An unclassified report was written in English.
For me, directing an international research project carried out by three research institutions staffed by talented and ambitious people was a new experience that provided a deep and comprehensive understanding of the different terrorist groups. It was also the first time I had heard the name al-Qaeda and comprehended its destructive potential. None of us imagined just how non-conventional al-Qaeda could become by using simple means to hijack airplanes and turn them into gigantic passenger-filled bombs to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The technical material and the historical survey of chemical and biological attacks, like the one carried out by the Japanese terrorist organization Aum Shinrikyo, were instructive and important for the formulation of the report.
The study provided readers with an assessment of the factors motivating terrorist groups, the many different organizational forms they employ, and the possibility of their making use of chemical, biological, or radiological substances in attacks in the future. The Israeli and French experts wrote a chapter with detailed information on all the substances that could be used for this purpose and analyzing their implications for defensive measures. Special emphasis was placed on analyzing individual attacks, such as the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway. Emphasis was also placed on drawing conclusions and generating forecasts regarding the use of non-conventional materials in future terrorist attacks. Our assessment was that the chance of a terrorist group succeeding in acquiring a nuclear weapon for use in a terrorist attack was extremely low. We also assessed that while radiological weapons using radioactive waste were not particularly effective, chemical and biological materials were much more likely to be put to use by terrorist organizations. The results achieved by using chemical and biological materials, the report emphasized, would stem more from their potential to cause mass panic than from any actual damage they might cause. The anthrax envelope scares in the US shortly after September 11, 2001 clearly illustrated the potentially immense psychological effect of the threat of a biological terrorist attack.
FRS also asked to publish the lectures I had delivered during the think-tank’s Working Breakfasts. I placed everything I had written in the trustworthy hands of Saint-Germain, who did a miraculous job editing it all. The resulting publication, which also appeared on the think-tank’s internet site, consisted of four articles written in excellent professional French, along with a number of articles in English I had written on my own.
Throughout my tenure as director of the defense ministry delegation in Paris, I remained a welcome friend of the FRS and attended many of the events it organized. During this time I learned to appreciate the elegant and effective way the French raise subjects for discussion over working breakfasts, and I was even able to convince a few members of the defense ministry delegation to attend the meetings as well.
14
The Defense Ministry Delegation to Europe — Paris
It was only when I started my job as head of the Defense Ministry Delegation in Paris that I realized what an excellent introduction my time at FRS, and particularly my participation in its ‘working breakfasts’, had been for my work with the delegation. Suddenly, people throughout the French defense ministry woke up to the fact that there was an Israeli defense ministry delegation in Paris, and doors were opened up to us, seemingly on their own. My insistence on speaking only in French, which I started at the FRS, also proved helpful in maintaining my contacts throughout my tenure as delegation head.
The series of introductory meetings I scheduled upon beginning my job brought me to the office of Jean-Claude Mallet, director of SGDN, France’s National Defense Secretariat. Mallet, a tall man who moved like a panther ready to pounce, had served as director of strategic affairs in the French defense ministry between 1992 and 1998. In this capacity he had led the French team during the French–Israeli strategic dialogue, which is where I first met him. When I referred to the meeting as one in a series of introductory meetings as I began my new job, Mallet stopped me abruptly. “You need introductory meetings?” he asked with a smile. “But you already know t
he whole city, and everyone knows you!” Two years later I took advantage of Mallet’s open door to request authorization to export parts of a weapon system that the Israeli defense industry had not succeeded in purchasing in France. Mallet came to the meeting well prepared, familiar with the details of our request and the reasons behind the refusal to authorize them.
The delegation in Paris had a long history. Its golden age was in the 1950s and 1960s, until the Six Day War. Everyone knew it as the “acquisition delegation”, and I had to work hard to convince people that the delegation’s tasks involved much more than simply purchasing arms and hosting the defense ministry elite each year for the Paris Air Show or the Ground Systems Show at Le Bourget airport. To this end, I emphasized the contacts between the Israeli and European defense establishments in research and development, strategic dialogue, and defense exports to Europe in general, and to France in particular. The new name of the delegation was Mission Européen de Ministère de la Défense — the Defense Ministry Delegation to Europe.
My sabbatical year at FRS made me increasingly aware of the importance of cultivating personal relationships and provided me with the motivation and confidence necessary to work in this direction. It was clear that our home could offer a good meeting place for forging ties in an unofficial and informal atmosphere. The time we spent in the neighborhood of Marais in the city’s 4th arrondissement during my sabbatical motivated us to look for a place to live there. We found an enchanting apartment on Île Saint-Louis — spacious, and made up of two smaller apartments in a house with foundations dating back to the 12th century. From the fifth floor we could see the River Seine and most of the Latin Quarter on its Left Bank. The view from the narrow balcony, with its iron-cast balustrade, was breathtaking, including the Eiffel Tower in the west, the Pantheon Dome, the Church of Notre Dame and the French Ministry of Finance in the east. This gem of a home quickly emerged as wonderful location for small intimate dinners, larger dinner parties, and musical evening programs in our large parlor.
One evening, composer and Tel Aviv University professor Yechezkel Braun gave a fascinating lecture in French during which he played selections of his own music and explained his approach to music. My friend Professor Joshua Jortner, president of the Israeli Academy of Sciences, gave a lecture on the opening up of the sciences in Israel. When Prof. Elie Barnavi arrived in Paris to take up the post of Israel’s Ambassador to France, he told me that he had heard about our cultural evenings and offered to speak at one. After inquiring into his academic background, I suggested that he speak about religious wars from the Middle Ages onward. Although this was before al-Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, radical Islam was already in the midst of worldwide expansion that was causing considerable concern. Ambassador Barnavie gladly accepted the invitation, and the wide-ranging lecture he delivered was attended by a large French audience who came especially to hear him. After his lecture he was encircled by a crowd who wanted to hear more. A few days later the new ambassador was scheduled to have an introductory meeting with French Defense Minister Alain Richard, and he asked me to join him. The meeting was also attended by Marc Perrin de Brichambaut, director of strategic affairs at the French Defense Ministry, and Jacques Audibert, political advisor to the defense minister. Both men had also been at our home for the ambassador’s lecture, and the resulting sense of familiarity lightened the mood considerably.
Lionel Jospin’s socialist government came into power in June 1997, and from the moment I began functioning as head of the defense ministry delegation we began trying to bring Defense Minister Richard to Israel for a visit. We were assisted by Audibert and de Brichambaut, who were two key members of the defense minister’s inner circle. During my first meeting with de Brichambaut, the new director of strategic affairs, I was accompanied by my deputy Dr. Stefan Deutsch and Military Attaché Brigadier General Avraham Asael. Before the meeting, I read up on de Brichambaut and learned that he too was a graduate of the ENA, the National School of Administration. De Brichambaut was thin and bespectacled and had the look of a shy schoolboy. During our first meeting he did not reveal the true power of his personality. He had a brilliant career in the service of his country. At the age of 34 he was appointed as chief of staff of Foreign Affairs Minister Roland Dumas, and was later dispatched to the US to serve as the cultural attaché to the French embassy in Washington. After his return to France in 1988, he was appointed chief advisor to Defense Minister Jean-Pierre Chevènement.
“What should I call you?” de Brichambaut asked me at the beginning of our first meeting, “Mister representative? General Eilam? Or perhaps Mr. Eilam?” “Call me Uzi,” I said almost instinctively. “That’s what my friends call me.” Although my colleagues were shocked by the manner in which I began my relationship with de Brichambaut, which was highly unorthodox according to French standards, they remained silent. Later, they told me that they were also surprised when de Brichambaut ended the meeting with the words: “Thanks Uzi, I’ll see you soon.” This meeting was the beginning of a wonderful friendship, which I still enjoy today.
Jacques Audibert, the defense minister’s political advisor, also spent many years in the French Foreign Ministry before receiving his appointment at the defense ministry. My chemistry with Audibert was apparent from the moment we met. Later, he told me that he was Jewish, that his family was from Alsace, and that many of his relatives had been killed in the Holocaust.
Together, we started planning the French defense minister’s trip to Israel, aware of the special sensitivities regarding the political implications of the places he would visit and the people he would meet. When I met with Audibert in the defense minister’s office to coordinate the substance of the visit, he asked, in the name of the minister, what Richard would gain from the trip. That is, what would he be able to present as his unique contribution to French–Israeli relations? I was not prepared for such a direct question, but I picked up the gauntlet and offered an analysis of the relationship between the two countries’ defense establishments. There had always been strong and stable intelligence cooperation between the two countries. There was already an open door for military meetings and a continuing, well-established French–Israeli strategic dialogue was in place, with professional and forthright meetings held in a positive atmosphere. Furthermore, an agreement for cooperation in the realm of research and development had been signed by Defense Minister Rabin and Defense Minister François Léotard in 1994. All that remained, I told Audibert, was to create a framework that would encourage cooperation between the French and Israeli defense industries. The next day Audibert phoned me and asked if I could jot down a few words to briefly summarize the issue. We worked hard within the delegation during the next few hours writing up a short text that declared both countries’ intention to encourage cooperation between their respective defense industries. The text was specially delivered to Audibert’s office the same day. At the same time, I translated it into English and Hebrew and wired it to Yekutiel Mor, who was responsible for foreign relations at the Israeli Ministry of Defense, and noted that it could serve as an agreement that could be signed by the ministers. I waited anxiously for a response from both defense ministries, and the positive responses for which I was hoping soon arrived. Both the French Defense Ministry and the Israeli Defense Ministry agreed in principle that the text we had formulated would serve as the agreement to be signed by Defense Minister Richard and Defense Minister Barak.
A two-day visit requires precise timing and close attention to every detail. Our goal was to squeeze in as many important issues as possible, while at the same time working in the requests of the French Defense Minister. Richard had requested a meeting with Israeli intellectuals, and the French ambassador had taken it upon himself to invite prominent Israeli academics and figures from Israeli industry to a gathering at his home, which would include dinner. Due to the constraints of Prime Minister Ehud Barak, we were forced to schedule the official Israeli
meal, a large, well-planned event, for noon the next day. I found myself as the host of the event, during which I spoke freely and comfortably in French. The morning after the guests arrived, I came to the French Defense Minister’s hotel bearing an English version of the text which the ministers were set to sign. I was anxious that we might have missed something that might prevent Richard signing sign the document before the ink on the final text had even dried. Ultimately, however, my worries were in vain. When Barak and Richard were sitting in the defense minister’s office at the Kiriya government campus in Tel Aviv, after the honor parade and the blasting of trumpets, the two ministers signed the agreement for cooperation between the French and Israeli defense establishments without the slightest hesitation.
The French defense minister also asked to speak with Israeli soldiers and to get a first-hand impression of the experience of serving in the IDF, and their feelings about serving in the occupied territories in particular. The soldiers selected for the purpose included a representative cross-section of French-speaking combat soldiers from the Armored Corps, the Paratroops, and the Artillery Corps; the minister’s direct interaction with the soldiers made for a dynamic and extremely successful gathering. For Richard, it was one of the most meaningful and moving parts of his visit.
Before boarding his plane, Richard thanked me graciously for the visit, which he said he would never forget. He emphasized his positive discussions with the Israeli defense minister and his belief that the agreement they signed would result in cooperative endeavors. He also stressed how much he had learned from his conversations with the soldiers. Finally, he thanked me for the manner with which I had conducted the visit. When Richard departed, I knew we had a friend in the French government. I also knew and that the defense ministry delegation in Paris would now have even greater access to government officials than they had previously.
