By choosing this term as the title of his documentary on the construction of the Grande Arche de La Défense, the author was conforming to a very French fault, systematically denigrating everything that has succeeded. He perfectly describes the circumstances in which this project was born. At the beginning of 1982, the President of the Republic decided to carry out several major projects of both an economic and cultural nature. Building a large building on the site then called "La Tête Défense" was part of it and gave rise to a competition in which several hundred architects participated.
While the documentary accurately recounts the circumstances in which the project by Danish architect Otto Van Spreckelsen was chosen, it is silent on the economic consequences of the choice of this location. The La Défense district, designed to host company headquarters and host events, was born in the sixties. A spectacular architectural achievement, the CNIT, had been built but in the end had been a failure. Part of it had to be closed and the district no longer attracted investors.
When the rumor began to spread that, as part of the plan to support growth, the choice of projects was going to be made, a young real estate developer, Christian Pellerin, met with the advisors at the Elysée Palace and suggested that they locate one in La Défense, precisely to revive this district. We know what happened next. When the Financial Times chose to make its front page on the French economy, it published a photo of the great towers of La Défense, a site described as the first business district in Europe, with the Grande Arche in the center, illuminated.
Nor did Le Monde speak of a curse when it made the front page of its supplement on the 40th anniversary of the agreement made in December 1985 with Disney to host in the Paris region the leisure center that the American group planned to build in Europe. Competition had been fierce, especially with Spanish sites. Within the government, there was no unanimity either. For a long time, Jack Lang, in the name of the predominance that should be given to French culture, had expressed his reservations. Even in California, where the first park was built, moving to a country ruled by socialists was not easy.
But reason has triumphed. Today, with more than 10 million visitors each year, Disneyland Paris is the leading destination in Europe for amusement parks. With nearly 20,000 jobs created, many hotels and shopping malls that are always full, it has helped to revive economic activity throughout the region. The new transport infrastructure (extension of RER line A, connections with the TGV network) benefited the population and it would not occur to anyone to question or even criticise the government's decision at the time.
The same is true of the TGV network, presented as one of the national prides that has changed the lives of millions of French people. But who remembers the circumstances that led to these achievements? The Messmer government's choice was strategic in the early 1970s by retaining the construction of new lines that allowed new trains to continue their journey on traditional lines, unlike what was the benchmark at the time, the Japanese Shinkansen. But everything came to a halt in 1979 with the decision of the Barre government to abandon the construction of the last section of the Paris-Lyon line.
It was François Mitterrand, in September 1981, during his speech inaugurating this line, who asked the SNCF to study the possibility of building new high-speed lines serving the west of France. We know what happened next. After the West, today as far as Bordeaux and Nantes, there was the North, as far as Brussels, Amsterdam and Cologne, then the East and, at the same time, the extension of the lines to the South-East as far as Marseille with the Lyon bypass.
Another "curse" is the Channel Tunnel. The project was imagined more than a century ago, without ever going beyond the study stage. It was relaunched in the early 80s. The United Kingdom had joined the European Economic Community and the President of the Republic wanted to strengthen economic and political ties with London. What could be better than carrying out this project? After several years of studies and discussions, the choice between a tunnel and a bridge was decided and on 12 February 1986 François Mitterrand and Margaret Thatcher signed the Treaty of Canterbury setting out the legal framework for the construction of the structure and the new terms and conditions for the transport of goods and people.
During the discussions on the construction of new high-speed lines, the Prime Minister, Pierre Mauroy, who was also mayor of Lille, had pleaded in favour of lines to the North. The president replied that they would take place when an agreement on the cross-Channel link was concluded. What was said was done and it shows the strategic vision of the State at the time. In the end, Lille will be one of the big winners since the city has found itself at the heart of the connections between France, the United Kingdom and the Benelux countries, which has generated many job creations.
The "curses" were not limited to large infrastructures. High-tech companies have benefited from this, and two examples will be cited. In 1981, Dassault, for the construction of its aircraft, had created a new software, Catia, which made it possible to obtain a three-dimensional representation, which facilitated the creation and production of aircraft parts. Its executives then proposed to the government to make an agreement with IBM for the computer giant to market it to its customers. At the time, it was a taboo since the entire industrial strategy of the 70s had been based on the creation of companies that would make it possible to free itself from IBM. Today, Dassault Systèmes, which was born from this agreement with IBM, has a market capitalization of 32 billion euros and was used in particular for the construction, by Frank Gehry, of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao.
The other example concerns aircraft engines. The French producer, SNECMA, and the American General Electric had decided to cooperate to develop a new model, the CFM 56. In 1981, pressure was exerted to break this agreement in favor of a European, Rolls Royce with geopolitical arguments that are easy to imagine. But the State held firm because the partnership facilitated access to the world's two leading producers of civil aircraft, one being American, Boeing, and the other European, Aérospatiale, which was to become Airbus. In addition, each had a great technological mastery. Since then, SNECMA has become SAFRAN and its market capitalization exceeds 120 billion euros.
Dassault Systèmes and SAFRAN, among many others, are children of the 80s, a period during which, contrary to many preconceived ideas, deindustrialization did not begin but on the contrary the modernization of many industrial sectors with the emergence of world-class groups contributing to employment and exports.
The time has come to abandon political polemics in favor of historical realities. The 80s were not those of curses but of decisions and achievements that contribute today to the wealth and influence of France.