French Ambassador to Poland Pierre Ménat talks with Marcin Mierzejewski.

How do you assess the political and economic relations between France and Poland two years after the enlargement of the European Union? What was the impact of Poland's accession on bilateral relations?
The impact was very strong-it changed the framework of our political relationship. Before 2004 the situation was different: we were supporting Poland's accession to the EU. Now, we are on an equal footing. Poland is a large EU member state in terms of population and voting numbers. When we deal with issues that require a qualified majority, France has 29 votes and Poland 27, so we are almost in the same position. I think it has changed the spirit of our relations.

Another point is that this common membership in the EU has allowed us to come together on issues such as the Stabilization and Association Process (SAP)-which is the EU's policy framework for the Western Balkan countries-the EU budget and trade negotiations in the framework of the WTO. There is also a question of cultural identity. Even with subjects that we approach differently, the fact that we belong to the same union obliges us to work together and not to emphasize our differences or create crises. Instead of that, we have an approach that employs dialogue and cooperation. An example of this is the EU services directive, which was very controversial at first, but which we have now resolved, thanks also to debates in the European Parliament. Maybe it is not the ideal solution for Poland and not the ideal solution for France, but it is a compromise and the common Europe is often built on compromise.

How should the process of debating and decision-making be formulated in the new, enlarged EU? Can one talk about a decision-making crisis in the EU regarding the Constitutional Treaty discussions?
I do not think it should be called a crisis. The situation is not simple because the EU Constitutional Treaty has to be ratified by all of the 25 member states. As we know, so far 15 member states have ratified it, one member state will probably ratify it in the coming weeks and two were engaged in the ratification process, but then rejected the treaty. Seven more have not yet decided what they want to do about it. As a result, the European Council has decided that the German presidency in 2007 will be responsible for proposing how best to resolve the situation. An eventual decision on the treaty will have to be made before the end of 2008. In the meantime, we will function as we did before; the decision-making process has not been blocked. EU institutions are able to make decisions, as they have done on the EU budget, the services directive and many other issues. It is, however, clear that improvements could be made to these institutions.

What kind of improvement?
In accordance with President Jacques Chirac's earlier statement, France has made some proposals about how we might improve or reinforce the efficiency of the European institutions, and how a social dimension might be further integrated into them. We recognize a need for EU policies to be better coordinated and also that the institutions should be more transparent and democratic. These ideas were expressed by the European Commission itself. It means that during this time of reflection and consideration regarding what can be done about the Constitutional Treaty, we will also have to work on improving some procedures and institutions. We need to show the population of Europe that this is possible on the basis of existing treaties. This is very important because if we fail to do this, people could become discouraged and disillusioned about the future of the EU, both its actions and the development of its institutions.

Next year we will have cause for celebration in the Union: March is the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome. I think this will be a special opportunity for European politicians to publicly reinforce positive images and ideas of the EU's future.

The EU is not only built on declarations, however, and European integration is also developing in practice. A good example of this is a new Franco-Polish initiative. In June, 30 Polish soldiers went to the Congo on a peacekeeping mission in cooperation with the French army as part of an autonomous EU operation, neither under the auspices of NATO nor any other organization. This kind of cooperation is a new step for the EU and I am sure there will be others. So, even in the absence of the Constitutional Treaty we are able to find solutions.

What role can you see for the Weimar Triangle of France, Germany and Poland? Do we still need it inside the EU?
I am convinced that there is a place for the Weimar Triangle in the enlarged EU, but of course its role should be different than before. We have a meeting for heads of state on July 3 in Weimar, 15 years after the Triangle was created. For us it is an opportunity to create new forms of cooperation between these three states, which represent 40 percent of the EU population. We should consider whether the Weimar Triangle might play the same role as German-French cooperation did before. In the present situation Franco-German cooperation is still necessary, but it is no longer sufficient; we need more support. It is also important that we have a lot of common policy goals, like the EU's eastern policy.

Talking about the eastern policy, what is France's attitude toward the situation in Belarus?
Our attitude on this matter is exactly the same as Poland's. We believe that this situation is not consonant with European standards, especially in light of the fact that this country is a member of the Council of Europe. France has made its position very clear, and our authorities made clear statements following the March elections in Belarus, saying that the elections were not free and fair. We also maintain contacts with the Belarusian opposition, as does Poland. Mr. Milinkevich, the leader of the democratic opposition, went to Paris and was received by our foreign minister. We are ready to take measures to ensure that Belarus can move towards democracy.

What about France's attitude to the idea of the future accession of Ukraine?
This is not a question for today. As you may have noticed this issue was not mentioned in the conclusions of the European Council. For the moment, we believe that Ukraine should continue its reforms and we fully support the idea of a renovated agreement between Ukraine and the EU.

Can you explain why French businesses hold such a strong position in Poland?
If we want a short answer, I have it in only one word: confidence-confidence that the Polish market, with its current strong growth, will expand with the additional benefits of EU membership; also, confidence in the country, its stability and, last but not least, confidence in the people. If you look at the biggest French investments in Poland, you will see that their employees, including those at management level, are mainly Polish. These Poles have a lot of know-how; they are well trained and they are able to cope with any situation. For two years, I have had the opportunity to talk to a lot of French businesspeople who work in Poland, and this is a common way of thinking about Poland and its citizens.

The most recent big French investment in Poland-worth more than 130 million euros-is Manufaktura, a huge commercial center in £ód¼. What were your impressions from the May 16 inauguration of the center?
I think it is a very beautiful and unique place. It was an excellent idea to renovate the old postindustrial buildings of Manufaktura, which formerly belonged to Izrael Poznañski, one of the most famous 19th-century businessmen in £ód¼.

I have been to £ód¼ three times and I have seen the town's evolution. Previously, there were many discouraged people. When I went there in May though, I noticed that £ód¼ looked different. I hope that opening Manufaktura, which will employ 3,500 people, is a sign of future good fortune for the town and its inhabitants. I am also very glad that it is a result of the contributions of a French business.