It would not set limits to Saddam Hussein

can be high. But it just that very wide doors to those that it has decided to let go. A country has the right to control its borders, not to lock up. I think that it would be smart to provide a "green card" Editor's Note: a residence and work permit to all students who come here and that follow a "masters degree" an undergraduate or a PhD thesis. Should say: "We want you as citizens."

Are you not even a little naive counsel of only positive globalization

Easy reading of the lazy criticism of my book is as follows: Tom Friedman took the plane, he met his rich Indian friends and he yelled victory without seeing that there were also poor in India. Thank you. But I am not foolish at this point. I know that there is poor in India. Novelty, was that now there are also people who are enriched by their work and their education. I know that if travelling an hour in away from Bombay, it falls on pockets of poverty of the 15th century. But before it was enough to drive a quarter of an hour, and one day need to drive two hours. I say just that gloriously Socialist India had succeeded in making everyone poor. It was the egalitarianism at the bottom. Today, it is true, some are richer than others. Welcome to capitalism! Today, this is no longer the IMF or World Bank trying to save the India: these are the Indians themselves and they give themselves new models. There is excitement and reserves have increased from $ 100 million to more than 140 billion dollars.

But for poor, what should be done

In the United States, the reform of the social security health and pension is a priority. It should also allow employees to retain their rights to supplementary pensions when they move from one employer to another. And especially to continue to invest permanently in education. Nothing is frozen. The worker is threatened, but me too. I must always continue to train me and learn to master new tools. When I was a kid, my parents told me: "Tom, finish your plate, there are Chinese and Indians who die of hunger." Today, I say to my children: "finish your homework, there are Chinese and Indians who want your jobs. In this new world, there is more guaranteed employment. Regardless of geographic location, employment will be for the best. I am not for or against globalization, I am that it gives everyone a chance to succeed and that is helping the weak.

You had popularized the "McDo theory" that two countries with McDonald's are never does the war. You have extended the concept with the "Dell Theory", that two countries as part of the chain of suppliers of the computer manufacturer are never off. Is this not of idealism

Don't me go to someone who ignores policy or cultural determinism and has an economic vision of reality. I try to just put things in perspective by showing that the economy plays a significant role. French or American academics, donors of lessons, they are too simplistic visions. Listening to, China should already have invaded Taiwan. For my part, I am keep well to say that this will never be the case, I'm looking just to draw attention to the following fact: when the Chinese Communist Party heavyweights meet in small Committee, one that declares that it is time to attack Taiwan is probably entitled to applause. But once the meeting is completed, I am sure that the Prime Minister or another receives a call from his son that prevents that he works for a Taiwanese group providing the United States in computer memory, for example, and that in the event that a conflict would affect deliveries, customers, whatever they are, would see elsewhere. If you believe that the policy is still only decided by those who are at the top, wrong. I only say this.

At the outset, counsel for the intervention in Iraq, you have severely criticized Jacques Chirac. But, since you're opposed to George Bush and have criticized the way in which takes place this war. Was your initial opinion justified

I was in Iraq war for democratic reasons. I wanted that is instituted a model democracy in this region. I did not have weapons of mass destruction, but I was still in favour of the intervention. My attitude towards the France had nothing to do with the Americans making fun of the "loose cheese eaters." On the contrary, it is because in the Lebanon, in the early 1980's, I have with the French military and I know their value I knew essential that they be on our side. Without the French, I was aware that we would be less effective. With them, we would have had another legitimacy. Bush wanted a war at all costs. No doubt was he not honest. But, conversely, Chirac is left to gray by the popularity of his opposition to the President of the United States. He also did not say the truth. It would not set limits to Saddam Hussein. The interest of all was that it is at our side. Now, if I must choose between a man willing to take risks to get rid of a dictator and a concerned man of his place in history, I would still choose the first.