OPENING/For Jean-Charles Allavena, former member of the 12 July Club, Prince Albert II’s foreign policy is his greatest achievement to date.
Internationally, the Prince has given new impetus: to come off the OECD list, remain in the Council of Europe, and begin negotiations with the EU. How would you describe his foreign policy?
The foreign policy of Prince Albert II is absolutely clear, and I am inclined to say that it is his greatest achievement to date. After the important memberships his father Prince Rainier decided on (UN, PACE), he has strengthened the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and opened many Monegasque embassies abroad, all this aimed at achieving greater recognition of Monaco. He has committed himself to fundamental issues such as the environment, and has chosen the position of global neutrality in international conflicts. That allows our small country to play a dialogue facilitation role. I believe it is the right approach.
In terms of fiscal transparency as well?
With a sign of real modernity, he has made very strong decisions regarding the OECD and the EU, namely to refuse Monaco’s isolation – which some parties advocated and still advocate – to look ahead to frank international cooperation decisions, waging that this desire for cooperation will be recognised and the resulting benefits will outweigh the losses that the end of opaque practices will cause. Events are showing that he was right. It was in this spirit that he asked his government to take on negotiations with the EU, without of course renouncing the protection of Monaco’s specific features, but in consideration of our strengths and development which must be encouraged and secured. I am in full agreement with this open policy line that has created Monaco’s wealth and will continue to do so.
For Lampedusa, “the system must change so that nothing changes”. In your opinion, do the system and the constitution need to evolve? And in what way?
Talking with Monegasque citizens, the vast majority clearly approve of the current political regime. So why should we change it? The constitution is revised fairly often, and in my view it correctly reflects the spirit of our institutions – a balance based on people more than texts – an anachronistic conception no doubt, but relevant here. I do not believe that a constitutional amendment is our priority. On the other hand, regular revision aimed at correcting over narrow or fossilised functions is desirable: certainly not to alter the lines of power-sharing but to work better with the existing lines.
How?
Let us take the convincing example of article 14 of the constitution (Editor’s note: on ratification of treaties by the Prince or by law). Since I was elected I have defended a more open interpretation. The Minister of State refused to listen to me and some MPs thought it useful to conduct an unconstitutional witchcraft summary trial. The Council of Europe stated that the point was an important one. Prince Albert accepted this more modern interpretation authorising systematic consultation of the Conseil National, in the knowledge that it in no way trimmed his powers. The Minister of State confirmed the decision to PACE, and those who wanted to burn me alive in public are pleased with the result. I believe that things must evolve this way, with successive modifications to the functions. There will be a time to alter the texts later.
_Interview by Milena Radoman
