Last month in New York, Vivendi Universal chairman Jean-Marie Messier (pictured) declared "The French cultural exception is dead", sparking a furore in the French media. Last week he sought to put the record straight with an article in Le Figaro newspaper - the complete text of which we reproduce below:

"What an avalanche! "Messier versus French culture"!

Apparently I have been given the honour of inciting political unanimity. Unanimity against what, though' No matter, it seems, as soon as the polemic began and fed off itself, this empty theory swelled from one commentary to another, one invective to another...

So, let's get back to the body of the crime such as it appears to be according to the malevolent interpretation that it's been given: "From New York, Jean-Marie Messier declared - full of provocation - that the cultural exception was dead, that he assumed the right to bury it, to cancel aid to film and proudly announced the victory of the mono-cultural product, the death of diversity, the end of creation, of pluralism. Scandal! Who does he think he is'"

Scandalous, yes' if I had said that. But, did you read, in the tens of articles published in the last two weeks, my actual remarks' Allow me to cite just a few three sentences: "The French cultural exception is dead: We are today in a period of cultural diversity. What does that mean' That we have to be at once global and national. Vivendi Universal's interest is to have, on one side a very dynamic American major, and to have on the other side Canal Plus and StudioCanal, the leading supporters of the French film industry, but also of Polish film in Poland, Italian film in Italy."

I'll willingly agree that I was perhaps a bit strong in my tone, but let's remember the context. As we were in New York presenting a superb deal - but also a purely American deal - the rapprochement of Universal Studios and the USA Networks cable group, giving birth to Vivendi Universal Entertainment - a French journalist made me react to the fears of certain factions in the French film industry for whom this threatened of the "Americanisation of French film", which completely misses the point. As if each advance on our part in the US had to be ipso facto translated as a withdrawal from France! This reflex of spontaneous suspicion: now there's a French exception, and not the best one.

In reaction to this systematic, visceral fear, my words - once again, either heard or read - sought to underline the legitimacy of cultural diversity, of all diversity, in a framework which has evidently escaped France: the pride to be strong in the US just as we are in Europe; pride to have in Canal Plus the leading supporter of French cinema; pride in being able to launch in the US in a few months, thanks to these agreements, the first European cinema channel.

Two days later, in the French newspaper Liberation, I answered a question about whether I regarded specific support systems that favour cinema to be legitimate: yes, I replied, without ambiguity. So, is there in any of this, grounds to accuse me of cultural provocation, of internationalist arrogance, of an attack on national sovereignty' Should I mention the fact that even French public bodies and the European Commission no longer use the word "exception" but instead "diversity"' Must I note that none of those who immediately picked up their pens or microphones bothered to make a telephone call in order to check what had really been said and the interpretation to give it'

If, at the end of the day, the controversy has allowed us to give the cultural exception question the space it deserves, I will be thrilled. But, let's get back to the facts, and to the real debates: creation, diversity, pluralism... I believe in action and proof, not in slogans. As one independent producer wrote to me, paraphrasing the poet: "If love is born of its proof, I suppose that the pursuit of love is born in the pursuit of its proof."

What is unbearable about the present debate is that it rests solely on the belief that a big communications group is condemned to engender one single thought, commercial production of the lowest level, standardisation, and so on. But this is not our business. At Vivendi Universal, our job in our film, publishing and music activities is to help talent, find them, and support them. To scout for and promote talent - that's our role.

"Merchandising" culture' Let us look at the facts: yes we are a merchant geared towards making a profit. But this doesn't stop us from taking a risk: all creation is a risk, and to produce a blockbuster is just as risky as producing an auteur film. It is up to us to know how to make decisions. And our choices are never centralised but always made by the film studio, record label or publishing house, each with its own culture, from La Decouverte to Plon, from Verve to Universal Music France. And they are not limited to safe bets.

In literature, Plon (Vivendi Universal Publishing) stuck by novelist VS Naipaul for years before he tasted success and won the Nobel Prize. And to publish the Algerian Habib Souaidia's La Sale Guerre is to take risks and to strive for diversity of opinions and not stick to what is comfortable and consensual...

As for cinema, to pre-buy and produce the last film of Garrel is done neither to have a good conscience nor because of a belief that it will have the success of Taxi 2 or The Dinner Game. It is simply to recognise a talent, sometimes not so easily accessible, but which allows a unique voice to be heard. In music, again, Zebda or Noir Desir don't really belong to a international, global outlook and were supported before garnering their deserved success. Because their label believed in them. It is this which is the force of Vivendi Universal: that of its labels, its publishers, its studios, completely free in their choices and their risks, including for difficult works. Our teams are teams of artisans, of the passionate, as diverse as creation is by virtue of its essence. They succeed because they each have a knowledge of and love for their business.

Is there a limit to this freedom' Yes. The understanding that we must engage with a public; but this public can be large or very targeted. It can be the latest work or more remote, through the management of music, literary and cinematographic libraries and archives.

I repeat: I consider it legitimate to give support to cultural activities. In the publishing world VUP is at the forefront of the campaign for intellectual property rights, the only means of recognising creation. Universal Music has spoken in favour of radio stations being obliged to air French music, which has helped bring about a renaissance of French music and the rise in its market share. I believe this movement to be ever deeper than this because it encourages the creativity of young artists and the search for our cultural identity, a necessary counter balance to globalisation.

As for cinema, since it is the most capitalistic (after all it costs a lot of money to produce a film) and because film demonstrates far more than the other art forms the difference in sensibilities (not necessarily nationalistic, by the way) its development assumes specific aid in order to assure the pluralism of its expression. That said, quotas and subsidies can't be the sole plank of our cultural policy. And since the current dispute is primarily focused on cinema, here are some additional observations.

Everyone is happy with the fantastic state of health of French cinema today and recognises that the systems of financing which a