Gerard Errera: Model of discretion, master of the unspoken inference

The Monday Interview: French Ambassador to the UK

From his first-floor office in Knightsbridge, France's ambassador to the Court of St James can look out through luxuriant greenery on to Hyde Park, his peace broken only by the hum of light traffic and the occasional clip-clop of horses. Just now, though, this quiet and elegant domain feels as though it were the still centre of a world that is turning far too fast and unpredictably for anyone in London, Paris or even Washington fully to comprehend.

When he arrived in Britain last autumn, in already uncomfortable circumstances, Gérard Errera could have hoped to steer Franco-British relations back into staid normality. Instead, he has had to cope with tabloid headlines gleefully denouncing his President as a "worm" and his compatriots as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys".

If that were all, the whole sorry saga could be dismissed, as it is with eminent good grace by the ambassador, as "not important".

Tabloid headlines, however, were almost the least of it. Through no fault of his own, M. Errera has found himself negotiating one of the most serious rifts to have opened between Britain and France for decades. Worse, it is a rift that has exposed a fault-line threatening the whole construct of international relations. So when you start talking about Britain, France and Iraq, you find yourself all too soon talking about Europe, transatlantic relations and the world.

Consummate diplomat that he is, M. Errera prefers to look forward rather than back. "Of course, it is important to have the history right," he says, when I ask about the initial rift, at the UN Security Council in March, "but it is not our intention to dwell on this ... Too many negative things have been said."

He launches, none the less, into a detailed recitation of how and why the French – and not only the French, he adds almost shyly – found themselves on the opposite side from the British and Americans. He evinces regret that war was not avoided, but not the slightest hint that France would do anything differently if it faced the same choice again.

"The stakes were high, so our voice had to be strong. And we are proud to have taken the position we did; we were consistent from first to last in defending the principles we believed in," he says. "As a permanent member, it was incumbent on us to defend our position and take responsibility on a matter of peace and war. If push had come to shove and there had been a resolution authorising war and we had just kept silent, it would not have been fair to let this responsibility fall on other countries."

France had hoped, M. Errera says, that the UN weapons inspection regime, so painstakingly restored last autumn, would become a model of how to deal with one of the big issues of the future, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction worldwide. "We wanted to deal with it in a legitimate, collective, multilateral way." The closest he came to criticising US and British conduct was to add: "We have to have rules, international rules, decided in common and applicable to all."

As to France's priorities for an Iraq policy now, they start with meeting the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. Security and stability come next, then economic and political reconstruction. But two absolute essentials will determine France's response to the new US-British resolution tabled at the Security Council last Friday. The disarmament of Iraq must be established and validated by "international authority" and any new arrangement for administering Iraq must have legitimacy. Both these elements lay at the heart of what separated the countries that supported the war from those that opposed it, and they meant a "central role for the UN".

Would France be prepared to join a multinational peace-keeping force? "Not now. We'll have to see how the situation develops. There is no clarity, either from the US or from Britain, and they are the ones on the ground." However, he stresses that France would take a "pragmatic and constructive" approach to this week's discussions at the UN.

The fact that the US and Britain went to war without UN authorisation "can't be portrayed as a failure of the UN", M. Errera says. He also vigorously contests the accusation that, in opposing the US and Britain, France acted out of self-interest. "There are principles that are not negotiable ... And you don't do it only for your national interests, but for principle. That is any country's right ... This is something that goes with democracy. Democracy within states also means democracy between states."

He clearly meant that thought to apply as much to transatlantic relations as to relations within Europe – and to the perception that France and Britain have rather different visions for the European Union. M. Errera denied there was any serious gap in any of these areas. But it is equally clear that he – and, therefore, the French government – follows every nuance of Tony Blair's statements on Europe and the US, and does so with evident concern, if not anxiety.

While Iraq showed Britain siding with the US, M. Errera noted that Britain also shared France's desire to see the EU have a strong defence policy of its own, as expressed in the declaration agreed at St Malo in 1998. That declaration is close to M. Errera's heart; he led the French side in negotiating it and regards it as a highlight of his career. This stated clearly that Britain subscribed to the aim of a common defence and foreign policy. Asked if he detected any sign that Mr Blair was retreating from this position, M. Errera replied: "This is not what the Prime Minister has said and not what we are told, and there is no incompatibility between an EU with autonomous defence capability and a strong Atlantic alliance." However, his demeanour suggested hope rather than confidence underlay his remarks.

A similar unease attended the ambassador's outlook on the EU-UK-US triangle. He had noted Mr Blair's recent warnings about the dangers of a multi-polar world, which were widely seen as addressed to France, but said: "We have to pursue the goal of a united and strong Europe, because the world needs a strong EU and a strong US, united by a strong pact. I don't think there is any disagreement about that."

He denied that the recent meeting of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg to discuss a common defence policy in any way conflicted with Britain's intentions or undermined the North Atlantic alliance. M. Errera said: "If the EU were weak or divided, it would not be a suitable partner for the US. This has been true for the past 40 years and this is why the US has been committed to a united Europe, which it sees as being in its interests." But was this still true, in the new Bush era? "We cannot imagine", he replied carefully, "that what has been true of all administrations for the past 40 years would no longer be true. It is in the interests of the US."

He gives an upbeat assessment of the overall state of British-French relations. Britain and France were united in their determination to advance the peace process in the Middle East along the lines charted in the newly published road-map. Cross-channel co-operation against terrorism hadimproved compared with seven or eight years ago, when the French warned Britain that it was underestimating the threat from Islamist groups. The disparity in judicial systems that had complicated a joint approach for so long was being overcome.

M. Errera is not only the quintessential French technocrat, an énarque (graduate of the ENA, the prestigious national administration university) who also has a degree in politics. He also has a term as French ambassador to Nato behind him, several stints in the US, and came to London from the potentially career-crowning post of political director of the French Foreign Ministry.

Daniel Bernard, his predecessor, completed four years in London under a cloud after an alleged dinner-party remark found its way into the gossip columns. A model of discretion, master of the unspoken inference, Gérard Errera is unlikely to make a similar mistake. Asked about his views on Britain and the euro, he said with a smile that it was up to the British to decide. I rather thought he might say that.

THE CV

BORN: 30 October 1943

FAMILY: He and his wife, Virginie, have three children

EDUCATION: Graduate of the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris and Graduate of the Ecole Nationale d'Administration

CAREER: Enters the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; First Secretary at the French Embassy in Washington; Special adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs; Political Counsellor, French Embassy in Madrid; Special adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs; Consul general in San Francisco; Director for international relations at the French Atomic Energy Commission and Governor for France to the International Atomic Energy Agency; Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament; Ambassador to Nato; Political Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs