In the heart of Paris, on March 27, 2025, one of the most important—and simultaneously most disheartening—parliamentary hearings in recent years took place: the Commission of Inquiry into the Obstacles to France’s Reindustrialization. In a nearly empty room, with only four members of parliament present, a high-level exchange unfolded among a handful of experts still committed to defending the concept of national industrial sovereignty.
Chairman Charles Rodwell and rapporteur Alexandre Loubet hosted four exceptional witnesses via videoconference: Bernard Carayon, mayor of Lavaur and former MP; Alain Juillet, former head of intelligence at the DGSE; Christian Harbulot, director of the School of Economic Warfare; and Frédéric Pierucci, former Alstom executive and direct victim of American extraterritorial legal aggression. A panel whose collective expertise could easily form an Economic Security Council.
Bernard Carayon’s Diagnosis: The Return of Colbertism and the Fracturing of the State
Carayon opened the session with a clear and programmatic declaration: “Industry is the engine of research, territorial rootedness, social mobility, and technological sovereignty.” Without industry, France cannot be a power. He denounced the ideological blockade that for years rendered terms like “economic patriotism” or “industrial policy” taboo. These concepts are now making a comeback—but in a dramatically degraded context.
Between 2015 and 2018, the fracturing of the State was starkly illustrated through the issue of EU taxonomy. An ideological construct born in the Ministry of Ecological Transition and embraced by the Treasury, it excluded nuclear energy from the category of sustainable energy, cutting it off from public funding—a suicidal decision, cheered by Brussels.
Carayon called for unity within the state, tax stability, administrative simplification, and above all, diplomatic courage. He criticized the EU obsession with “horizontal subsidies” incapable of supporting strategic sectors. He proposed a new Strategic National Investment Fund, backed by public capital and private savings, capable of mobilizing €200 to €300 billion.
Finally, he highlighted that foreign investment screening in France is handled by a mere department head at Bercy. He also pointed to the lack of trade reciprocity: “China does not respect ILO conventions on union rights. Yet we keep importing freely.”
Alain Juillet: Economic Intelligence Is the War of the 21st Century
The former head of foreign intelligence set a strategic tone: “We have no friends. We are in a global economic war. The winner is the one who’s best informed.” He compared the situation to the war in Ukraine: without American intelligence, Ukraine would not withstand the conflict.
The same applies in economics: French services are unprepared, lack sectoral expertise (in health, defense, food), and operate with a mindset geared solely toward counterterrorism. The problem, he stated, is not money—but political priorities.
He lamented the abandonment of Africa by French banks in favor of Moroccan ones, and the exodus of French start-ups to the U.S. and China, which scoop up our researchers, engineers, and budding companies. “Others operate as public-private blocs. We are disorganized.”
Christian Harbulot: Economic Warfare in Peacetime—The Lost Doctrine
With a tone both polemical and analytical, Harbulot exposed France’s “blind spot”: its inability to conceive of power-building through economic means. He recalled France’s success in economic warfare during WWI and cited countries like South Korea and Japan, which used economic strategy to survive existential crises.
He criticized the Commissariat Général du Plan for banning discussions in the 1990s around confrontations between powers. He accused Ambroise Roux (CGE) of sabotaging De Gaulle’s industrial computer strategy.
“We need an official culture of economic warfare,” he insisted. He called for civilian mobilization, information counterattacks, and strategic training. And he declared: “If we’re not even capable of protesting outside foreign embassies when our hospitals are hacked, we might as well go sell waffles on the beach.”
Frédéric Pierucci: American Legal Colonialism Explained by a Victim
Frédéric Pierucci, former Alstom executive arrested in 2013 by the U.S. DOJ, denounced the extraterritorial reach of American law as an instrument of economic domination. Since the end of the Cold War, he said, American intelligence has redirected its focus toward economic espionage. He estimates 60% of their activities are now economically oriented.
He listed the U.S. legal arsenal: FCPA, OFAC, ITAR, Cloud Act, Patriot Act—all used to sanction and pressure. Once targeted, companies are then invited to relocate to the U.S. with cheap energy, generous subsidies (IRA), and exclusive legal protections.
He cited Siemens, saved by a €15 billion loan from the German state without EU approval. And he deplored France’s insistence on playing by “rules” no one else respects.
Responses to MPs: The Orchestrated Shipwreck of Sovereignty
Answering Chairman Rodwell, the panel confirmed the weakness of available tools. Carayon reiterated that foreign investment screening is managed by a department head. Juillet pointed to the lack of oversight on investors’ commitments. Harbulot denounced the resurgence of corporatism within DGSI. Pierucci revealed that in the Alstom and Alcatel cases, the State was aware—but did nothing.
On funding, Carayon advocated for a €300 billion sovereign fund; Juillet suggested reviving public bonds (like the historical Pinay bonds); Pierucci called for public procurement focused on French companies. “The U.S. built its industrial champions on public procurement—we’re financing Amazon and Microsoft with our taxpayers’ money.”
LMB Aerospace, Photonis: Double Standards
MP Loubet raised the case of LMB Aerospace, a strategic supplier for the Rafale, Leclerc tanks, and nuclear submarines. Now at risk of acquisition by U.S. funds, the company remains ignored by the media—unlike Photonis, which was saved thanks to media pressure.
Carayon called for cross-party mobilization. Juillet advised using media pressure. Harbulot proposed a campaign led by students from the School of Economic Warfare. Pierucci concluded: “What political party would oppose the defense of a strategic French company? None.”
Atlanticism and Omertà: The Long March of Cultural Colonization
In response to MP Tanguy’s question on “Atlanticism,” Carayon noted the blind admiration of French elites for the U.S.—even as they’re being robbed. Harbulot recalled a CIA agent visiting the School of Economic Warfare as early as 1997. Juillet spoke of the smear campaigns he endured. Pierucci pointed to the meteoric career trajectories of those who facilitated Alstom’s sale.
NGOs, Consulting Firms, Media: Weapons of an Invisible War
The speakers dismantled the myth of NGO neutrality. According to Juillet, Carayon, and Harbulot, they are often funded by states or multinationals and actively undermine French industry. Some even receive public funds. Harbulot described them as enjoying a “rent situation,” having become lucrative careers devoid of ideals.
Pierucci revealed that the OCCRP (the journalists’ consortium behind the Panama Papers) is funded by USAID and operates under U.S. State Department influence. No American financial scandal appears in its publications.
As for the media, Juillet cited ideological and financial control. Harbulot called for legitimate counter-influence campaigns.
Conclusion
At the end of this hearing, one question remains: how can a State survive if it funds NGOs that sabotage its own public policies, sidelines its own experts, delegates its digital sovereignty, and criminalizes the very notion of national interest? If this question is not answered soon, others will rewrite France’s industrial history in its place. In fact, that process is already well underway.
Be First to Comment