French ex-president Sarkozy stripped of Legion of Honor medal over corruption scandal
PARIS — France's former president Nicolas Sarkozy has been stripped of his Legion of Honor medal after being convicted last year of corruption and influence peddling while he was the country's head of state, it was announced on Sunday.
The decision was made via a decree released in the Journal Officiel that publishes the government's major legal information. It comes in line with the rules of the Legion of Honor.
The conservative politician, who was president from 2007 to 2012, has been at the heart of a series of legal cases since leaving office.
He was found guilty of corruption and influence peddling by both a Paris court in 2021 and an appeals court in 2023 for trying to bribe a magistrate in exchange for information about a legal case in which he was implicated.
He was sentenced to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet for one year, a verdict upheld by France's highest court, the Court of Cassation, in December.
Earlier this year, Sarkozy stood trial over allegations he received millions of dollars from Libya for his successful presidential campaign in 2007. He denies the claims. Prosecutors requested a seven-year prison sentence. The verdict is expected in September.
Sarkozy becomes the second former head of state to be stripped of the Legion of Honor — France's highest distinction — after Nazi collaborator Philippe Petain, who was convicted in 1945 for treason and conspiring with the enemy for his actions as leader of Vichy France from 1940-1944.
Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was stripped of his Legion of Honor award in the wake of widespread sexual misconduct allegations against him in 2017. Disgraced cyclist and former Tour de France star Lance Armstrong also had his French Legion of Honor award revoked.
Sarkozy retired from public life in 2017 though still plays an influential role in French conservative politics.
Sylvie Corbet, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
10 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
European leaders struggle with response to Israel-Iran conflict
As the war between Israel and Iran continues to escalate, European leaders have been caught off guard and are grappling with how to respond. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has sent fighter jets to the region, but he has not indicated whether the Royal Air Force will participate in any joint effort to defend Israel against Iranian missile strikes. Britain's foreign office has also warned its citizens against travelling to Israel. 'We are moving assets to the region, including jets, and that is for contingency support in the region,' Mr. Starmer told reporters while en route to the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alta., which starts Sunday. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said Sunday that France has not mobilized its forces 'at this stage.' And German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul offered to facilitate talks with Iran over its nuclear program, even though Europe has been cut out of the latest round of negotiations, which have been led by the United States. 'Germany together with France and Britain are ready. We're offering Iran immediate negotiations about the nuclear program,' Mr. Wadephul said during a visit to Oman on Sunday. Ottawa's foreign ministry says it erred in issuing statement advising Canadians to leave the Middle East The Europeans have been quick to back Israel's right to self-defence and warn against Iran's nuclear capabilities, but their calls for restraint and diplomacy don't appear to carry much weight anymore. Europe no longer has much of a role in talks aimed at curtailing Iran's nuclear program, and Israel did not seek support from Britain or France when its military launched its strikes on Iran on Friday. That contrasts with last October when British, French and U.S. fighter jets shot down missiles fired at Israel by Iran. Israel and Iran kept up their bombing raids on Sunday for the third day, and their leaders exchanged more bellicose rhetoric. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned of attacks that Iran 'cannot even imagine,' and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian threatened a 'more painful' response if Israel continued to attack. Israeli officials said their military had struck dozens of additional targets including oil depots as well as the head offices of Iran's Defence Ministry, police department and nuclear program. Iran's Health Ministry has said that 128 people have been killed and around 900 wounded, most of them civilians. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on state television Sunday that the country's defence was 'entirely legitimate.' He also warned that British, French and U.S. bases would be targeted if they helped defend Israel. Mr. Starmer, U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron have each insisted that their militaries have not been involved in Israel's attacks. Mr. Trump has also warned that 'if we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S. Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before.' The reality of Iran's nuclear ambitions Iranian missiles have killed at least 10 people in Israel, including six who died after their apartment building in Bat Yam, south of Tel Aviv, was hit. Among the victims were two children. Complicating Europe's response to the crisis is the deterioration in relations between Britain, France, Germany and Israel over the war in Gaza. The three European countries, and the European Union, have been highly critical of Israel's military campaign in Gaza and the lack of humanitarian aid. The British government recently sanctioned two far-right Israeli cabinet ministers and suspended negotiations on a trade deal with Israel. Mr. Macron said Friday that while he supported Israel's security, 'these attacks must not distract us from the need to establish a ceasefire' in Gaza. Mr. Wadephul, the German Foreign Minister, also highlighted the war in Gaza on Sunday, saying the humanitarian situation was unacceptable. Mr. Netanyahu has criticized the European position and accused France and Britain of emboldening Hamas. In an apparent sign of his displeasure, media reports suggest that he did not give the European leaders prior notice of Israel's plan to attack Iran, unlike Mr. Trump, who said he'd been briefed. Ellie Geranmayeh, a senior policy fellow at the Berlin-based European Council on Foreign Relations, said that despite the bad blood, Europe could still help to prevent an escalation in the conflict. In an analysis released over the weekend, Ms. Geranmayeh said there was uncertainty over Iran's ability to sustain a counter-response given the weakened state of its military and the depletion of its allies in Lebanon, Gaza and Syria. Nonetheless, European leaders should condemn Israel's aggression and work with the U.S. and states in the Gulf region to prevent a wider conflict, she added. The series of attacks should also 'trigger intense engagement' by Europe in talks to control Iran's nuclear program. Britain, France and Germany were deeply involved in negotiations in 2015 that led to a deal with Iran. Mr. Trump scrapped that agreement in 2018 and he has tried to reach a new arrangement through direct talks with Tehran. Ms. Geranmayeh said that 'rather than retreating from diplomacy,' Israel's attack should trigger an intense re-engagement by Europe in order to 'offer a viable political and economic pathway that would provide the conditions for a revived nuclear deal.'
Globe and Mail
14 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Macron visits Greenland to show French, EU solidarity after Trump annexation threats
French President Emmanuel Macron said on Sunday he was visiting Greenland to show French and European Union solidarity with the Arctic island after U.S. President Donald Trump's threats to take it over. Asked about those threats as he arrived in Greenland, Macron said: 'I don't think that's what allies do ... it's important that Denmark and the Europeans commit themselves to this territory, which has very high strategic stakes and whose territorial integrity must be respected.' Greenland is a self-governing part of Denmark with the right to declare independence. Both the Greenland and Danish governments say it is not for sale and only Greenlanders can determine their future. Trump has said he wants the United States to take over the mineral-rich, strategically located Arctic island, and has not ruled out force. His vice president, JD Vance, visited a U.S. military base there in March. Macron, the first foreign leader to visit Greenland since Trump's explicit threats to 'get' the island, was invited by the prime ministers of Greenland and Denmark. He has said his visit is meant to prevent any 'preying' on the territory. 'France has stood by us since the first statements about taking our land emerged. This support is both necessary and gratifying,' Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen wrote on Facebook days ahead of Macron's visit. 'I'm not worried that he (Trump) will be furious. It should be seen as us wanting to create more development in Greenland,' Nielsen told Danish broadcaster DR on Sunday when asked if he believed Macron's visit would upset the U.S. president. Why does Donald Trump want Greenland and could he get it? Asked if Macron would deliver an explicit message to the United States during his visit, an adviser to the French president told reporters: 'The trip is a signal in itself,' without mentioning Trump. Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot told RTL radio on Sunday: 'Greenland is a European territory and it is normal that Europe, and notably France, show their interest.' According to an IFOP poll for published on Saturday, 77% of French people and 56% of Americans disapprove of an annexation of Greenland by the U.S. and 43% of the French would back using French military power to prevent a U.S. invasion. Macron will visit the capital, Nuuk, as well as a hydropower station funded by the EU and a glacier, and discuss Arctic security and climate change with his hosts. Though Denmark is an EU member, Greenland is outside the bloc. The French adviser said the visit would be an opportunity to discuss how to give Greenland's association partnership with the EU a 'new dimension'. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen made several visits to Paris after Trump's threats to seek French and European backing, and has placed orders for French-made surface-to-air missiles, in a shift of focus for Copenhagen. Opinion: America's long Arctic love affair is culminating in Trump's designs on Greenland Enlisting the EU's only nuclear power is a way for Denmark, long one of Washington's most loyal allies in Europe, to project a form of hard power towards a suddenly more aggressive United States, said Florian Vidal of the Paris-based IFRI think tank. 'The Trump administration's more aggressive posture is a shock that makes the French vision of Europe, one that is more autonomous, appear more reasonable for Denmark,' he said. 'From a Nordic point of view, France is a military power that counts.' 'I think the U.S. president is serious. It's a difficult situation we're in. That's why it's really important that the French president comes, because it helps to emphasize the necessary European unity in this situation,' Frederiksen told DR on Sunday.
CBC
15 hours ago
- CBC
Where the G7 came from — and where it might go in the era of Trump
Historian Samuel Beroud has a pet peeve whenever anyone asks him about the origins of the annual Group of Seven (G7) summit. As the well-worn narrative goes, the G7 (originally the G6 before Canada joined In 1976) was set up as a forum among the world's leading industrialized nations following the economic shocks of the early 1970s, including the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system and the oil price crisis. The first summit was hosted by French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt in 1975. The two leaders met with the heads of the U.K., Italy, Japan and the U.S. for a fireside chat at the Château de Rambouillet, just outside of Paris. It is said that the gathering was necessary to shepherd the world economy and prevent disputes from escalating into nasty trade wars — but more importantly to reassure the public and the markets that the leaders were in charge and managing things. "I have a very critical interpretation of the G7, because if you look at things, basically the first G7 took place after the recovery of 1975 has already happened," said Beroud, a fellow at the Washington-based Wilson Center and PhD candidate at the University of Geneva. "So there is already like a trick from the politician to say, 'Look, we are solving global economic problems,' when they know already that the recovery has already started." There was, however, geopolitical value in meeting face-to-face and a clear message at the time, Beroud said. "The Western world has gone through a period of tension, but now we are united again and we are ready to face challenges from the outside. So this is the main message of the first G7 summit." Good luck getting there this week. Projecting a sense of calm reassurance as the global economy is upended by the Trump administration's trade war — not to mention hot wars in both the Middle East and Ukraine — would be nice. Hopefully the leaders gathering in the majestic wilderness of Kananaskis, Alta., this week get the memo. Whether that reassurance involves unity on key economic and security questions is in question — even doubtful. Perhaps more so than at any other point in the five-decade history of these summits. As host, the Canadian government seems to have given up on a summit-ending communiqué and appears poised for less comprehensive "action-oriented" statements. We all know why. Aside from a destructive trade war and the routine disparaging of allies, there is little common ground between U.S. President Donald Trump and the other leaders on key economic, environmental and security issues — notably Ukraine. WATCH | Why there likely won't be a leaders' communiqué coming out of the G7: Why won't there be a leaders' communique coming out of next week's G7? | Power & Politics 3 days ago Duration 14:19 Creon Butler, who helped organize Britain's G7 priorities for almost a decade, wrote last fall that with Trump in the picture, the G7 is so hamstrung — the areas of co-operation and agreement so few — that allies would be better off meeting in smaller groups, without the United States. "I think the problem now, frankly, is for all of that to work, you need a level of trust among the members, which despite … quite a few bumpy periods along the way, has always been there," said Butler, who served under former prime ministers David Cameron, Theresa May, and Boris Johnson. "I question now whether that level of trust is there with the U.S. to make it function in the way it has in the past." Questions of relevancy Throughout its existence, there have been other times when the G7 was a loggerheads over either a range of or specific policies, Butler said. But it's never been this stark. In light of its declining collective economic clout, the G7 has also faced existential questions. The arrival of the G20 in the early 2000s and the BRICS alliance raised the spectre of relevance in the face of a changing world. "There was actually a period where people wondered within the G7, do we still need the G7?" said Butler. One of those moments was in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis and before the cascading eurozone debt crisis. "It was the eurozone crisis, which was very fundamentally a G7 crisis — or Europe and other advanced countries — which clearly gave the G7 a continuing purpose," he said. More recently, it found purpose in the need to respond to Russia's attack on Ukraine. After ambling along in the face of the first argumentative Trump administration, the G7 came back in full force as the co-ordinating group for sanctions on Russia following its 2022 full-scale invasion — a time when everyone was on-board. Conversation doesn't always need consensus Given the deluge of events and the speed with which Trump has moved to upend the global order, those days seem very long ago. So what's the purpose now? "The G7s are [to] talk shop at the end of the day, right?" said Phil Luck, a former deputy chief economist at the U.S. State Department, now with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. "We get together and talk about things. So the question is what use is that? … I think there's always use in talking. I think it tends to not be that costly. And I think, if nothing else, talking can try to iron out disagreements. And that can be helpful." Sen. Peter Boehm, Canada's former G7 deputy minister, agreed there is value in talking — especially now — even if there's no consensus. After watching leaders behind closed doors at several summits, he said there's a lot to be learned from how they tackled their differences in the past. "Inside the room, it's not like everyone is close to fisticuffs or anything like that. It's a very cordial atmosphere," said Boehm, who disagreed with the notion that another forum — without the U.S. — is needed. "You can agree to disagree." When you look at recent history, everyone focuses on Trump's 2018 Air Force One Twitter outburst as torpedoing the consensus at the Charlevoix summit. But Boehm said history has shown there are ways to manage the discussion with the mercurial president — and he believes Prime Minister Mark Carney can keep Trump tuned in. "What I would say is bring him … into the meeting, [bring] President Trump into the conversation — and as often as you can, so that he does not lose interest," said Boehm. "And defer to him, because he is the president of the United States." But history and ego-management can only take you so far, and the bigger question becomes how other leaders respond to both Trump's policies and his potential tantrums. "I think the big challenge for Prime Minister Carney is to ensure that some sort of solidarity is demonstrated," said Boehm. "There won't be consensus on everything. There never has been. "But at least to have a modicum of a consensual view, where the G7 can present itself to the world and say, 'We had a good discussion on topics X, Y and Z, and this is what we propose to undertake.'" As the world's largest economy, nations over the years have grown accustomed to the United States — the so-called G1 — setting the agenda and leading the discussion. As the Trump administration jettisons the country's mantle of global leadership, Luck said it will be up to other G7 members to try to find consensus with the U.S. where they can — and lead on consequential issues that no longer interest America. "I think the world will be waiting for a while for us to show the type of moral leadership that I think people are used to. Or that we like to think that people are used to," he said.
