Christian Harbulot directs the school of economic warfare, an establishment belonging to the Spanish publishing group Planeta which trains around 400 students a year, of whom around 10% work for the French intelligence and security services. In a recent report, this specialist in cognitive warfare, a legal process based on the art of rhetoric and the production of knowledge, pinpoints Germany, several foundations of which work indirectly to destabilize the French nuclear industry. Interview.
L’Express: Why did you decide to produce such a report on a friendly country?
Christian Harbulot: This is actually the second report on the subject. The first part, we produced it before the Belfort speech, that is to say before the debate on nuclear power in France was relaunched. At the time, we already thought that there was no reading grid to explain how Germany had positioned itself in the field of energy and to understand why through its decisions, and sometimes its contradictions, it came to finally to weaken France on the nuclear field.
I would point out that we have self-authorized ourselves to carry out this work. We were therefore not “activated” by any ministry of the French administration. Why, after a first report, did we decide to put the cover back? A news item served as a trigger. During an event bringing together the entire defense ecosystem, some of our students were approached aggressively by two representatives of the German political foundation Heinrich Böll. These two people were obviously trying to denigrate the use of nuclear power in the army. This event made us want to know more. Why was this foundation doing this? What role did she play in France?
Was it difficult to conduct the survey?
We took about a year to finalize this second report. For a very simple reason: it is a taboo subject. “We must not talk about it because it weakens Europe”, we were told. In the meantime, since the practices we talk about in the document are not publicly denounced, we find ourselves in a totally unequal system. On the one hand, the Germans are attacking us indirectly through structures stemming from civil society and in particular foundations. Opposite, France cashes in and does not say much. From our point of view, it was necessary to rebalance things a little bit.
How do the foundations do to weaken the French nuclear industry?
They are mainly two to do it indirectly, via the drafting of documents with an anti-nuclear narrative, the orientation of the elites through training – doctoral scholarships, master classes… – and meetings abroad of political leaders, the alliance with certain NGOs or ecological parties. This work of influence benefits from increased financial resources. The general allocation devoted to all political foundations by the Bundestag continues to increase: 295 million euros in 2000, 466 million in 2014, and 690 million for the year 2023! As we explain in the report, Germany is doing everything in its power not to let French industry enjoy cheap energy and thus enjoy a significant competitive advantage. It acts, of course, at European level by occupying key positions in various institutions. But with foundations like Heinrich Böll, which benefits from an address in Paris, the undermining work is also carried out on French soil.
What is the most aggressive foundation from your point of view?
Rosa Luxembourg is more virulent in her work than the Heinrich Böll Foundation. In 2022, it published an atlas on uranium. This one prides itself on approaching the subject in a global way but he actually targets France on the methods of exploitation of uranium by Orano, but also on the question of Niger by surfing on an anti-French feeling very present in the region.
What is France’s reaction to these attempts at destabilization?
On the classic diplomatic ground, we see that France is more assertive of its positions with the other countries of the Union. However, in the field of indirect influence, I’m not sure that we put in place the same backfires. Under the presidency of Emmanuel Macron, around sixty people were hired to work on the phenomena of influence. But this structure essentially operates to counter Russia, particularly following manipulations that may have taken place during the last presidential elections. When these experts are asked if they actually work in other fields, they answer in the negative. In fact, outside of Russia and a bit of China, it’s as if nothing is happening. And for good reason: influencing through knowledge is not misinformation. There is therefore no reason to consider that there is a threat at the highest level of the State and therefore to mobilize the General Secretariat for National Defense Security or the intelligence services. But, of course, this is an error.
During the parliamentary commission on France’s loss of energy independence, the former boss of EDF Henri Proglio was one of the only people interviewed to openly criticize Germany. Do you regret this pusillanimity?
This is indeed one of the blind spots of this commission. But this showed that the Ministry of Ecological Transition held positions very far from a revival of nuclear activity, whether under the presidency of François Hollande, that of Nicolas Sarkozy or during the first mandate of Emanuel Macron. Within the CEA itself, people in key positions were clearly anti-nuclear. I see the result of this music of indirect influence aimed at the disorganization of our system which should have mobilized to defend the relevance of the nuclear industry but which did not do so.
In our defense, finding a parade is not easy. Our report recommends the creation of an interministerial mission of vigilance and fight against the excesses of foreign political foundations. Built on the model of Miviludes, the purpose of which is to fight against sectarian aberrations, this organization would make it possible to raise public awareness and limit the impact of actions taken against France. It is a modest proposal but undoubtedly a good start.