Texte intégral
Welcome everyone. I'm going to say a few words in French, but because quite a lot of you are representing the international press, I'll say most of my words in English.
La France a pris la présidence du G7 au 1er janvier. Certains se demandaient alors : le G7 a-t-il encore un sens dans un monde fragmenté où le multilatéralisme traverse des turbulences et la tentation au repli sur soi est forte ? La crise a montré l'absolue nécessité de poursuivre le dialogue à l'international. Le multilatéralisme, ce n'est pas être d'accord sur tout, c'est être capable de se parler de tout. Le dilemme du prisonnier, si chacun agit de son côté, nous sommes tous perdants. Si nous veillons à nous coordonner, nous prenons la mesure de l'impact de nos décisions et les conséquences des décisions des uns sur les autres et des autres sur les uns.
Ce G7, c'était un moment de gravité, à la hauteur de nos responsabilités et à la hauteur des enjeux mondiaux auxquels nous faisons face. Durant ces deux derniers jours, nous avons eu des discussions franches, parfois difficiles, directes, pour trouver des solutions de long terme et de court terme aux gros enjeux économiques mondiaux afin de garantir la stabilité économique. Nous avons travaillé à la réduction des déséquilibres macroéconomiques globaux. Nous avons travaillé à la sécurisation des chaînes d'approvisionnement des minerais critiques. Nous avons travaillé à la redéfinition des partenariats internationaux. Nous avons travaillé au soutien des plus vulnérables chez nous et ailleurs. Et nous avons réaffirmé notre soutien indéfectible à l'Ukraine.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am extremely proud to have shared chaired an economic G7 Finance here in Bercy, in Paris. We are here to prepare the leaders' summit that is going to take place under President MACRON's leadership in June, in Evian. As France holds the presidency of the G7, my President has set a range of priorities, of which a big part are fundamentally economic. This is not just a simple gathering. This is the result of a month of work and discussion. And I would like to use this opportunity to thank everyone that has been involved in the process of organizing this meeting here in Bercy, but also making the work land. Thank you all. We are at a critical moment and we could feel this. There was solemnity in our discussions. The level of our discussion matched the momentum of this G7. This meeting is about 1. delivering a message about the virtues of dialogue and sustainability. But it is also about the necessity of taking action. And let me tell you something to those who questioned the very existence of the G7: the last few months have proven them wrong. This is the seventh formal G7 meeting that I was sharing since January in all sorts of organizations and distributions of ministers, not only to address the situation, but also to find out long-term solutions to build sustainable growth. And I will say it again. It is about taking actions. We did it in March when we released the stocks of strategic reserves. And at that time it had an impact on the price of oil and we were today again gathered to have more actions planned. Those past two days, we had demanding conversations, but very constructive discussions with the G7 Finance ministers, with the central bankers, in the spirit of cooperation, of shared responsibility, and in a very good working atmosphere, I have to say. I would like to give a special greeting to my colleague and friend, François VILLEROY DE GALHAU. He is not going to like the two seconds I am going to spend on him, but still. Thank you very much for your outstanding work, not only during this G7, but for decades, including the last decade at the service of the Bank of France. You've played a key role in the French economy, in the European economy, in the global economy. Thank you very much, dear François.
From the beginning of the G7 track, we had three main priorities to address global economic challenges. 1) to reduce global economic imbalances. 2) to work on our dependencies on critical minerals. And 3) to revamp international partnerships. But G7 is also about managing emergencies. Thus, dealing with the ongoing crisis, and regarding this specific crisis, we have asked the IMF and the World Bank to upgrade their support to countries which are hit by the crisis. There are—we have the list, we know, and Ajay BANGA and Kristalina GEORGIEVA were very clear, if we don't do anything—50 million people might be faced with a food crisis very soon. We need to act, and I'll get back to that. Because this crisis has a severe impact on the most vulnerable ones, we need to support them at home and abroad. We had, we have a G7 communique. You probably have it already. And if you don't, you're going to get it very soon. But in addition, and for the first time, we had a special focus communique on global economy and global imbalances, which we work on with other countries. Because this G7 was not just a G7, we had special guest. We had a session this morning very productive with Brazil, India, Kenya and South Korea, they contributed to the discussion, we took major steps to take the right path towards more stability, more resilience and a better understanding of our common challenges and mutual interests. And we just had lunch with an extra set of partners from the Gulf, Qatar, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia in which once again we are both to discuss the global economy but also be highly impressed with their resilience and their adaptability. They are on the forefront of the crisis and we command their resilience.
Now let's come back to our three main priorities. First, global imbalances. We all share a common view. Those imbalances are not sustainable. They're growing, they're persistent, they create unprecedented geopolitical, political, economic, and financial tensions. They have to stop. On one side, you have China with an excessive surplus. That's growing every day. On the other side, the U.S. with a major deficit. And on the third side, Europe, which doesn't invest enough. And this is affecting everyone, us included, but also everyone else. We have a record in history. The China surplus is now 1,200 billion dollars, 20% of global exports, and with concrete impacts on our daily lives. This is about jobs, this is about industry, this is about affordability, this is about consumption. This situation undermines our citizens' trust in globalization in our very model. And this is not good news for our country, including outside of the G7. We all share common interests. At the end of the day, it's not about whose fault it is, but how we, all together, address the situation. This is multilateralism at its best. And on this front, we agree to take urgent actions. We share the need to take domestic measures based on the analysis driven by the IMF and the OECD. We need to increase investments, we need to improve productivity, we need to end market-distorting policies. Those measures will be tracked by the IMF, alongside relevant international organizations such as the OECD. And we are going to keep on engaging with other countries in order to provide our leader again with a great assessment and hopefully an action plan by the time Evian comes.
One very good example of what an imbalance is the issue of critical minerals. And as the G7, we decided to tackle this matter together. Canada started tackling this issue in the previous presidency. We took it on board; we brought it further. Global imbalances mean global dependencies. Critical materials and rare earths might be an abstract concept to some of you, though they are very, very special goods. It's a very small market, but a disruption—and we've seen it over the last year in that market—can cause a huge impact on the economy. One electric car requires 150 magnets. If we don't have the rare earths, we don't have the magnets. If we don't have the magnet, we don't have the car. Therefore, a supply shock of permanent magnets can put hundreds of factories out of work. This is why we decided in the G7 to extend the critical mineral alliance that Canada created this time last year in order to put together a plan that's going to be very concrete on building stockpiles, on trustability of the value chain, on structuring information sharing among us, on mobilizing multilateral development banks and the private sector to boost investment, and to make sure that we provide our leaders with a concrete list of projects that show that we can do it.
Regarding dependencies, the ongoing war exposed our vulnerabilities. The conflict in the Middle East is impacting our lives and global economy. On that matter, and Francois will get back to that, we benefited from central banks' and financial stability board assessment. The uncertainty is putting growth and inflation at risk, and we know in what direction; possibly less growth, probably more inflation. Most vulnerable countries endure increasing energy and food prices. The fertilizers and supply chain are under pressure. There are some people, some sectors, some countries under stress right now. It's cropping season in a big part of the world, and let us not forget that inflation in fertilizers and food means that some people will have difficulties to buy and or to find foods in the next few weeks and months. Everyone agrees that the top priority is to take trade flows back to normal. We call for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. We call for a lasting resolution to the conflict. We really closely monitor its impact with international organizations. But I want to be clear: the Strait of Hormuz needs to be open free of charge. We know that the longer it takes, the tougher it will be for the economy. And in the meantime, you know that we coordinated a strategic reserve release in March. We also agreed on avoiding non-corporative actions such as export bans. We do believe that targeted and temporary measures are the most effective directed to the most affected households and businesses. And for countries in need, IMF and multilateral development banks will continue working together using the full range of their tools and in line with their respective mandates. We all agree that given the current situation, we should try by all means to avoid a food crisis. We want an action plan to be presented to our leaders in Evian this time next month with special attention to fertilizers in order to mitigate the impact of the conflict on agricultural production and food security. Time is of the essence. We must act. It will be a joint G7 Finance and development work, which will also involve relevant international organizations such as the Food and Agricultural Organization, the International Fund, the World Bank, and so on.
As you know, support to Ukraine has been an important part of our work over the last four years. It still is. Support to Ukraine is a major commitment of our presidency, and I want to reaffirm our strong and definitive support. This is why it was important for us to convey Finance Minister of Ukraine, Serhiy MARCHENKO, and the Governor of the Central Bank—and I want to make it very clear—Russia cannot benefit from the war in the Middle East. This is not an option and on this, all G7 members agree. On Ukraine, we've made huge progress on closing the financing gap. We are not there yet. We are supporting them. There's reform conditions. We need Ukraine to put their side of the story, which is putting reforms in place. They are strongly committed to that. We are strongly committed in maintaining and pursuing sanctions and pressures on Russia to prevent them from getting critical revenues and financing the war effort. And in addition, we committed to finance the repair of the Chernobyl confinement.
Ladies and gentlemen, before I give the floor to François, I would just like to reiterate that this was an important, very important, extremely important meeting addressing the major economic challenge of the 21st century. I'm very well aware of just how important this is. My colleagues are very well aware of just how important it is. We know our responsibility in this critical moment in the face of geopolitical events, in the face of economic imbalances, in the face of our dependencies. Multilateralism is not an ideal: it's not an option; it's the most powerful tool. The law of the fittest just doesn't work. We're ending this with a shared commitment to build a more stable, a more resilient, a fairer global economy. The road ahead is demanding, but our will is even stronger. So this end, we've been working since the first day, now we need to drive this momentum through to the Evian summit between the 15th and the 17th of June. Thank you. François, c'est à toi.
François VILLEROY DE GALHAU – Gouverneur de la Banque de France
Merci, monsieur le ministre, cher Roland. Allow me a personal word in French and some complements in English. Le mot personnel, il se trouve, le Ministre l'a dit, que c'était mon dernier G7. Je peux dire, avec le recul de 11 années, et donc beaucoup de points de comparaison, que le G7 de Paris, ce G7 de Paris, a été un très bon G7. Et ce n'est pas seulement nous qui le disons, c'est aussi nos collègues des autres pays qui étaient là. Très bon G7. Ce qui m'a frappé, c'est parce que les discussions intervenaient évidemment dans un moment difficile, mais je crois qu'elles ont eu trois caractéristiques qui font le succès. Elles ont été sans complaisance et lucides face à la gravité de la situation, face aussi aux désaccords. Elles ont été libres, entre responsables de haut niveau, et puis elles ont été en confiance.
If I now come to the substance and only to complement what the Minister said about the outcome, may I insist about some deliverables of what I call pragmatic multilateralism. Yes, multilateralism is of the essence, but we should be pragmatic in our deliverables. How can we improve the lives of our fellow citizens? Let me quote three examples we touched upon.
First, cyber. And we had the conclusion of a so-called cyber exercise, and we decided to strengthen our common work among G7, facing, as we all know, increasing threats. Second, extreme weather events. And you will see in the communique, there are at least two paragraphs on this issue, which we discussed at seven, and in a pragmatic manner, again, to quote one figure, according to [inaudible] the cost of extreme weather events, the economic cost, has been more than 200 billion dollars last year, 25. And this cost has increased in average through the last 30 years of at least 5 % each year. So the issue of insurability, fulfilling the protection insurance gap is a key issue. There are private solutions or public-private solutions. We decided to go on working on these solutions in the G7 framework. And the third example, and I pay tribute to you, Minister and to your team, fight against financial crime. There is a very important conference organized this afternoon, but we had the GAFI in French or FATF chairwoman coming. As you know, FATF was created by the G7 in Paris in 1989, it is based in Paris, and it's also for the good of our fellow citizens. Think of drug trafficking and drug dealers, when we fight against illicit flows, we endeavour to improve the life of our fellow citizens.
Can I conclude with two issues we discussed more essential bankers in two dedicated sessions? I could have mentioned also, and you will see it in the deliverable of the G7, quantum computing or all our work on non-bank financial intermediations. This refers to financial stability. But I would like to conclude with two issues we discuss more central bankers.
First, cross-border payments. And this is also very practical progress for millions and millions of people around the globe. We know that cross-border payments are too slow, too expensive at present. We decided to accelerate the interlinking of our fast payment system and adopted common values and prepare a practical handbook on that. We should make cross-border payments definitely quicker, cheaper and safer.
And last but not least, we discussed obviously among central bankers, monetary policy and global economy. And here I link it directly to what you said, Roland. It was in a broader circle with our South Korean, Indian and Kenyan colleagues, we obviously face a diversity of situations. Let me stress from an economic standpoint that there are two supply shocks happening at a global level at present. An energy supply shock, obviously, linked to the conflict and negative for most jurisdictions, but a positive supply shock on artificial intelligence. And the combination of these two shocks is different from one jurisdiction to another. But that said, we discussed, obviously, the increasing uncertainty increased by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. It heightened risk, as you said, to both growth and inflation. We discussed heightened volatility on sovereign bonds market. It has several reasons: the uncertainty I just mentioned, including political uncertainty in some jurisdictions, some questions on fiscal policies, but let us be clear, fears of inflation. And this is for us central banks. So we reaffirm strongly our collective commitment to monetary policy, ensuring price stability and anchoring inflation a target for the middle term. And this is a strong collective commitment. You will see it in the communique, monetary policy will remain data dependent. And we are closely monitoring what we call the second round effect on core inflation, on inflation expectations, and on economic activity. We are ready to act as much as necessary. The precise answer clearly belongs to each central bank and each jurisdiction. And I will stop there and will answer your questions.
Roland LESCURE
Évidemment, les questions en français sont les bienvenues.
Giorgio LEALI – Politico
Vous avez évoqué, Monsieur le Ministre, des discussions franches, directes et parfois difficiles. Je me demandais si les réunions d'hier et d'aujourd'hui ont été l'occasion de rappeler pour les Européens le fait que la guerre au Moyen-Orient doit se terminer au plus vite et de parler du fait que les conséquences économiques se feront sentir davantage en Europe. Merci beaucoup.
Roland LESCURE
Je pense qu'il n'y a pas que les Européens qui pensent ça. Nous pensons tous qu'elle doit se terminer au plus vite. On est engagés dans un conflit difficile. Nous sommes évidemment tous convaincus que l'Iran ne doit pas avoir accès à la bombe atomique, que les enjeux balistiques doivent être traités. Et tout ça, je dirais, je le laisse à mes collègues qui s'occupent de géopolitique. Mais nous sommes tous évidemment conscients que le plus tôt on ouvrira le détroit d'Ormuz, le plus tôt ce noeud économique d'un conflit géopolitique sera tranché, le mieux on se portera tous. Mais je l'ai dit, je vous le répète, ça ne se fera pas à n'importe quel prix, notamment au prix de je ne sais quel péage qui contreviendrait de manière flagrante au droit international. Voilà, on fait face à une réalité, on est un monde avec lequel on vit, et on fait tout pour, en collectif, s'assurer que les conséquences économiques de ce choc sont les plus limitées possibles, et notamment, j'insiste là-dessus, pour les plus vulnérables, parce que ça a été notre focus depuis deux jours et ça le reste.
Ross CULLEN – Channel News, Asia
Bonjour Monsieur le ministre. You said that you were aligned with your G7 colleagues that Russia must not benefit from the war in Ukraine. The United States has announced another waiver of sanctions on Russian oil. Do you agree with that extension of the waiver, if you're aligned with your G7 colleagues? And separately also on your discussions with Mr. BESSENT, did you call again with him for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz? And did you get any sense from the United States delegation of their next moves in terms of the conflict? Thank you.
Roland LESCURE
Well, we all agree, Scott BESSENT included, that we should open the Strait of Hormuz as soon as possible, not at any cost and certainly free of charge. He's given us a bit of an update on the state of the conversation. One of the beauties, and I know it's frustrating for some of you guys, of the G7 is that not everything we say necessarily comes out of the room. I was talking to someone who was involved in G7 a long time ago who said to me that at first a G7 was a meeting behind closed doors with 7 leaders, no staff, no agenda, no note-taking. I mean, we've gone much further and we're now having a press conference exchanging with you on what we said in the outcome, we have a communique, there's terms of work being done, there's still conversations that are not going to come out because this is the beauty of the exercise. On the waiver on Russian oil, this is certainly not a G7 decision, so I'll let you ask Scott BESSENT why and how they decided to do that, but I can tell you that the willingness of G7 to keep on putting pressure on sanctions on Russia was unanimous and that nobody wants Russia to have a windfall profit of what's going on in the Middle East.
Leigh THOMAS – Reuters
You mentioned domestic measures to address the unsustainable macro imbalances. What precisely do you have in mind and how can having the IMF and the OECD track those make a difference ? And then secondly, on the critical materials, have you sort of narrowed the options for the common toolbox ? What are the concrete steps that you're going to take going forward ?
Roland LESCURE
So on the global imbalances, I think we all understand that it's not about finger-pointing, it's not about telling, “you should do this or you should do that.” And certainly, we all reply to our parliaments, I don't want to go to the French Parliament telling them that the G6 has told the seventh number, which is me, to do this and that. The idea, and I know it's a conversation that requires a change of mindset. Not a mindset that thinks that in every conversation there's a winner and there's a loser, but that we can have conversations together where together we can win-win. And that's what the IMF analysis and that's what [inaudible] Economist Group has brought to the table as well, which is at the end of the day, if each of us does the right thing, we'll all together be better off. I said, very simply, Europe needs more investment. I said very simply, China needs more consumption. And I said very simply, the US deficit needs to go down. Well, guess what? When you talk to these people, every one of us says that we should do it. The question is, can we have a way of doing this together, coordinating ourselves, doing it simultaneously, because everyone around the table admits that if we do it together, it's going to be more efficient? And that requires a conversation that hasn't happened yet. There's been lots of bilateral discussions. The President would like to, my President, Emmanuel MACRON, would like to engage with all the actors, including China that wasn't here today, but also Brazil, India, some countries of Africa, Europe, the US and others, Canada and others, to make sure that together we can find a roadmap. And hopefully this is going to happen between now and Evian, we're not there yet, but we had great productive conversation on this.
On the Raw Material and Critical Mineral Acts, the way I would describe the Lego we try to build, is three-fold. One, the International Energy Agency was created in the 70s, faced with at that time a big old shock that made us realize that we didn't have the tools to follow the market, to understand where inventories were, to understand where vulnerabilities were. So we want to be able to gather as a G7 to follow that market. We probably call that a task force. The idea is not to build a new agency. The IEA is doing a great job, the OECD is doing a great job. But we want to be able to monitor the markets, to understand them, to understand where stockpiling is and what stockpiling is missing, to make sure that we are able as a group to say, okay, the market's okay, no need to act, or the market's not okay, and there's one of those markets where we need to act. 2, there's discussions on agreements that could take different ways that are taking place at the initiative of the U.S. that could look at different ways and tools of addressing market inefficiencies. There could be price flaws, there could be tariffs, there could be quotas. And this is an ongoing work that hasn't completely landed yet. But 3, I think most importantly, we need to show that together we are able to change the conversation, make things happen on the ground that are changing the balance of power for those rare earths that are becoming critical to electrification. Two weeks ago, I was in the southwest of France looking at a factory, that's been financed by U.S., Japan and France, that's going to recycle and produce 10% of the rare earth we need in the world. In Pau, in Lacq, in the southwest of France. And those 10% are going to be half of taken by Japan. This is again what you call, Francois, multilateralism on the ground, pragmatic multilateralism. We are showing the ground that we can produce alternative to a market for which, it has to be acknowledged, we have a monopoly today from one country.
François VILLEROY DE GALHAU
If I may add one word on the part of the question referring to domestic measures, if I got it right, Lili, there was unanimous agreement around the table that such measures should be. You remember the famous triple T: targeted, temporary and tailored. Unanimous agreement. Can I add two practical observations? First, so far—and the IMF has an IMF tracker—measures taken past jurisdictions, I don't say they all perfectly comply with the three T's, but such measures are much more limited than after 22, and rightly so, if you look at the quantum compared to GDP. And may I add, Mister Minister, a remark for France, as a very independent central banker. So far, I think the sober answer by the French authorities is welcome in this period because we all know if we don't respect the triple T, it creates fiscal problem, obviously. But it was reminded yesterday, it increases oil demand globally, and this is exactly the contrary of what we should do.
Susum SAKAMOTO – The Asahi Shimbun
Regarding the food security, have you discussed any specific measures, including setting the corridor for fertilizer?
Roland LESCURE
Yeah, I mean, as you know, that was one of the U.S. ideas that was brought forward at the G20 in Washington about a month ago. This is one of the options we could look at. We have to make sure that the most vulnerable countries, it's cropping season there, cannot be durably affected by the crisis on fertilizers. So this could be one of the options. There are other options in terms of diversification of supply and maybe stock de-piling. That could happen as well. But we certainly are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that no food crisis is coming after this ground fall.
Romain TARDINO - Journal spécial des sociétés
Bonjour Monsieur le ministre, bonjour monsieur le gouverneur. J'ai une question pour vous. Il y a deux semaines, vous disiez que le kérosène n'allait pas être à risque. Le conflit s'enlise. Qu'en est-il aujourd'hui ?
Roland LESCURE
J'ai la même réponse qu'il y a deux semaines. Heureusement, on suit les choses évidemment de très près, mais quand on regarde le marché du kérosène en Europe, en France singulièrement, puisque c'était la réponse à une question qui m'était posée il y a 15 jours à l'occasion de l'évocation de la saison touristique de cet été, le fait qu'on ait augmenté nos capacités de raffinage, le fait qu'on ait diversifié nos approvisionnements, notamment en provenance des États-Unis, qui eux-mêmes ont augmenté leur production de kérosène, fait que nous sommes confiants sur notre capacité collective cet été à s'assurer que les avions puissent voler en France, de France et vers la France.
Mathilde DEHIMI – France Inter
Deux questions pour chacun d'entre vous. Monsieur le ministre, bien que vous repreniez, en quoi cette réunion du G7 va permettre de temporiser les conséquences de la crise actuelle pour nos sociétés ? Et Monsieur le Gouverneur, est-ce que le fait d'avoir vu tous les banquiers centraux vous a permis d'arrêter une décision ou des avancées en vue des réunions futures de juin, sachant que tout le monde avait décidé de temporiser ? Et puisque vous parliez d'indépendance tout à l'heure, de la Banque centrale, petite question franco-française, puisque les députés socialistes ont choisi de ne pas soutenir Emmanuel MOULIN en commission, est-ce que vous pensiez que votre succession serait si compliquée ? Merci.
Roland LESCURE
Face à une crise globale, le G7 a une fois de plus montré son intérêt, à la fois, je dirais, entre nous 7, mais aussi au-delà. Les discussions qu'on a eues avec nos amis kényans, nos amis indiens, nos amis brésiliens, puis avec nos amis du Golfe au déjeuner nous ont montré que la meilleure manière de gérer cette crise, c'était de se concentrer sur les plus vulnérables. Des mesures à taille unique qui concerneraient tout le monde, y compris ceux qui n'en ont pas besoin, que ce soit des secteurs, que ce soit des ménages, que ce soit des pays, seraient évidemment une mauvaise manière de répondre à cette crise. Pourquoi ? C'est ce qu'on appelle une crise d'offres, un choc d'offres. On manque, du jour au lendemain, d'une partie du pétrole mondial. Et si on répond globalement en subventionnant massivement la demande, on va se retrouver avec un déséquilibre encore plus marqué. Et donc, ce consensus autour de notre capacité collective à identifier les plus vulnérables et à diriger nos mesures vers eux, c'était évidemment un des éléments concrets de ce G7. Mais 2, surtout, nous avons, avec le FMI, avec la Banque mondiale, identifié ces plus vulnérables. Et nous avons en tête un certain nombre de pays aux côtés desquels il va falloir être de manière très concrète, avec des instruments qui existent, au service du Fonds monétaire et de la Banque mondiale, pour les aider. On a des pays aujourd'hui, l'Irak par exemple, qui est un pays qui dépend cruellement de ses ressources de pétrole, et qui aujourd'hui est évidemment incapable de les exporter. Nous devons focaliser nos mesures sur le soutien à l'Irak, évidemment, le Fonds monétaire et la Banque mondiale y travaillent. Donc de manière très concrète aujourd'hui, au-delà des enjeux de sécurité alimentaire dont je parlais tout à l'heure, ce G7 nous a permis de prioriser, de séquencer et de focaliser notre aide sur ceux qui en ont le plus besoin.
François VILLEROY DE GALHAU
Sur vos deux questions, je vais commencer par la dernière. Vous n'allez pas être surpris par ma réponse. Concernant la nomination de mon successeur, il y a une procédure qui est prévue par la Constitution et les lois de la République. Elle se déroule. Laissons-la se dérouler. Et effectivement, il y a les auditions parlementaires demain. La Banque de France n'a fait aucun commentaire, ni votre serviteur, depuis le début de cette procédure. Elle n'a pas à en faire.
En ce qui concerne la politique monétaire et les rencontres entre banquiers centraux, nous n'avons pas eu, je l'ai dit tout à l'heure, de discussion pays par pays ou région par région concernant la zone euro. Il se trouve que je ne participerai pas, étant parti, à la prochaine réunion du Conseils des gouverneurs de début juin à laquelle vous faites allusion. Je veux simplement redire deux choses. La première, c'est la volonté générale, je le rappelais tout à l'heure, d'agir dans toute la mesure nécessaire pour ramener l'inflation à sa cible de 2 %, dans notre cas, à moyen terme. Ça veut dire agir et non pas surréagir, ça veut dire disposer des informations en ce qui concerne les effets de second tour, l'inflation sous-jacente, les anticipations d'inflation, notamment des ménages et des entreprises, les salaires, mais nous serons prêts à agir comme il le faut, parce que nous avons une obligation de résultat. Les ménages et les entreprises françaises et européennes peuvent nous faire confiance pour assurer cet ancrage de l'inflation à 2%. Je le redis très fortement. L'autre chose, si vous me permettez une remarque un peu plus spécifique sur le débat européen, mais je n'irai pas plus loin. Je crois qu'il ne faut pas focaliser le débat seulement sur le calendrier. Si vous permettez de le dire avec un sourire, quand on était au mois d'avril, c'était “qu'est-ce que vous allez faire le 20 avril ?” Maintenant, c'est “qu'est-ce que vous allez faire début juin ?” Je vais le dire en anglais parce que ça s'y prête mieux. The main question is not about the date, it's about data. Pas un calendrier, mais des données. J'ai dit à l'instant quels sont les éléments de notre fonction de réaction liés au second tour. Après, ce sera au Conseil des gouverneurs, les 9 et 10 juin, de décider selon ces données.
Marie VIENNOT – France Culture
Bonjour. Puisque vous nous dites que tout le monde était d'accord pour dire que le multilatéralisme, vraiment, c'était la solution. Est-ce que vous avez parlé du commerce et notamment de la politique américaine, qui n'a pas été très coopérative l'année dernière ? Est-ce que c'est un sujet qui a été abordé ? Et quelles solutions vous y voyez ? Et quand vous nous parlez d'action concrète, vraiment, il faut qu'on « need to take action » sur ce que vous dites, etc. Donc là, vous nous donnez l'exemple, par exemple, de l'aide du FMI et des pays qui pourraient... Mais est-ce que vous avez d'autres exemples à nous donner, puisque vous parlez notamment des engrais, que c'est la saison où, justement, on en a besoin ? Et est-ce qu'il faut attendre le G7 d'Evian en juin pour avoir vraiment la traduction concrète de ce que vous nous dites ? Ou, déjà, aujourd'hui, il y a des choses qui ont été décidées, ou alors, en fait, que vous nous amorcez tout ce qui va être concret en juin ? Merci
Roland LESCURE
Peut-être pour répondre de manière un peu simpliste, peut-être, à votre question, l'idée de ce G7 Finances, c'était un peu de faire la part décisive à nos leaders. C'est vrai qu'un certain nombre de sujets importants sont en passe d'être finalisés, mais que parce que le président de la République a souhaité que ces sujets soient abordés au plus haut niveau, parce qu'ils concernent des sujets extrêmement importants, parce qu'ils concernent aussi l'avenir du monde, nous avons, je pense, pas mal avancé le travail de manière à ce que nos leaders puissent, je l'espère en tout cas, le conclure sur des sujets aussi importants, très concrètement, que les minerais critiques, que le règlement des équilibres globaux, qui peut parfois paraître un peu théorique. Mais si la France a perdu des dizaines d'usines ces 30 dernières années, c'est du fait de ces déséquilibres globaux. Si aujourd'hui les marchés financiers, je ne veux pas dire qu'ils nous inquiètent, mais en tout cas ils nous occupent et parfois même ils nous préoccupent, c'est en grande partie du fait de ces déséquilibres globaux. Donc il est important évidemment d'avoir tout ça en tête et les leaders trancheront.
Sur le commerce international, D'abord, je ne suis pas sûr que tout le monde considère que le multilatéralisme soit la solution à tout. Ça, c'est ma conviction. Je pense que cette réunion a montré qu'effectivement, sur tous les sujets, au fond, plus on parle, mieux on est. Et je pense, y compris d'ailleurs les États-Unis, qui nous ont par exemple remerciés quand on a libéré les stocks stratégiques au mois de mars de manière collective, reconnaissent quand même que parfois, ça peut aider. Est-ce que ça veut dire qu'on est d'accord sur tout ? Non. Sur le commerce international, c'est une des questions que vous évoquez. Évidemment, nous ne sommes pas d'accord. Et dès qu'il faut rappeler à Scott BESSENT que je ne suis pas d'accord avec lui sur l'utilisation des tarifs dans la correction des déséquilibres globaux, je vous rassure, je le fais. Mais une fois qu'on a ces désaccords, notre capacité collective à trouver des lieux où on peut se mettre d'accord, où on peut avancer ensemble, on peut même parfois essayer de se convaincre qu'on peut avancer ensemble, sont évidemment les bienvenus. C'est pour ça que le G7 avait été créé dans les années 70, à un moment d'un autre choc pétrolier, à un moment d'un autre conflit mondial. On continue à le faire et je suis très heureux de voir qu'au fond, ça fonctionne. Merci beaucoup. Merci à tous et toutes. On continue avec la conférence « No money for terror », une conférence très importante. François l'a dit, on a de manière très concrète au coin de nos rues souvent des matérialisations très réelles. On a 75 délégations présentes ici pour s'assurer que le financement illicite des activités illégales ne soit plus dans le monde, y compris avec les outils modernes. Merci.
https://www.economie.gouv.fr, le 22 mai 2026