Daily Press Briefing
Statements made by
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson
(excerpts)
(Paris, March 10, 2006)
[Please note that only the original French text issued by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs may be considered official.]
FRANCE/SPAIN
Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin will fly to Madrid on Monday, March 13, for a meeting followed by a working luncheon with Spanish President José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.
They will discuss European issues, in particular the situation in the energy sector and anti-terrorism cooperation.
(…) With regard to energy issues, several aspects are to be discussed. First, everything concerning the electric interconnections between France and Spain, in particular the proposed very high-tension electric lines. On the European front, all the issues related to the energy sector. In France there is the Suez/Gaz de France matter, and in Spain concerns have been voiced about ENDESA.
One of the major issues to be discussed at the European council in March is energy. The European Commission published a green book on energy Wednesday. There’s now going to be a discussion at ministerial and head of state and government level. The commission will be presenting more definite proposals on the basis of that at the end of the year.
Q - About the visit to Madrid. I’d like to know how the prime minister’s economic patriotism is perceived? Do the Spanish feel the same as the Italians?
As I said just now, on the Spanish side similar concerns have been expressed recently. So it’s a question that has to be discussed, knowing that for us there’s also the need to develop European cooperation on energy matters. This is one of the objectives of the European council in March. We have very close energy cooperation with Spain, and with Italy too for that matter. No one is questioning it. We’re convinced that there has to be very close cooperation among the European countries on these energy issues.
We welcome the start of national dialogue between the main political forces in Lebanon, which is to resume in a few days, with all the participants.
We hope that this dialogue will be pursued in the constructive and open spirit that presided at its launch so it can lead to agreement on the main questions of national interest, with respect for the relevant UN resolutions.
Q - When you say “with the constructive and open spirit that presided at its launch” is that a critical reference to Walid Jumblatt who has been making statements in Washington?
Everyone is free to interpret that as he wishes. That’s important for this national dialogue is that all the political forces are taking part, and that it’s being done in a constructive spirit. Once again, it’s an encouragement to the very principle of national dialogue and the fact that everyone is participation.
Q - About resolution 1559.
From our point of view, obviously this framework exists. These UN resolutions exist, and we are committed to them, including resolution 1559 as President Chirac recalled not long ago. Of course, it’s something that must be taken into account by the Lebanese political forces. One of the questions is precisely knowing how--in the context defined by the international community, which essentially sets the principles--one can then get to the implementation, which is done through dialogue and is consistent with the wishes of the Lebanese political forces. It’s not at all incompatible. You have principles which exist, which appear in these resolutions, and then there’s the practical work, and how to implement these principles. That’s where you need dialogue. It doesn’t strike me as being incompatible.
Q - I’ve two questions, the first concerning the dialogue you support. Are you optimistic about the consequences of this dialogue….? The second question is that a few weeks ago there was some question of an official visit to France by general Aoun….?
Regarding your first point, I think we’d be still more pessimistic if there were no national dialogue. The fact that the positions are different, we know, is the whole question, but the element of optimism is precisely the fact that there is a dialogue. We hope it leads to a form of agreement that permits the Lebanese government to work and put in place its program of reforms, knowing that these elements will be taken into consideration by the international community. There’s a proposal for conference as you know. For that, it’s desirable for the reforms to be in place.
Q - But does support for the proposed conference depend on them?
No, I don’t believe it’s strictly conditional but it’s an important element. The political reforms are important for Lebanon itself and therefore for the success conference as well. It’s not a condition set by the international community but an important element for a successful conference.
Q - Do you have any comment about the current situation in Iraq? American-style democracy seems difficult there.
No, I’ve no new comment about Iraq except to repeat what we’ve said repeatedly, and President Chirac said when he went to Saudi Arabia about the need for an inclusive approach which takes into account all the components of Iraqi society. Institutions have to be set up that represent all these components of Iraqi society. That has been our line all the time and also se can effectively what is happening on the ground, the security situation or rather the security that everyone sees, including hostage-taking on a massive scale, like the one two days ago.
We condemn this violence and we hope to see an inclusive process. There too, our line is constant. As the president said recently, there also needs to be eventually the prospect of a withdrawal, a withdrawal of foreign troops on the horizon. That’s a well-known French position.
Q - The State Department report on human rights concerns among other things the exercise of religion and faith in France. Do you have any comment?
The report by the State Department comes out every year. The State Department is obliged to make a report to the US Congress every year. It’s a report which reflects an American vision, which tells how the US views the human rights situation in various countries around the world. Obviously no one questions the right of the United States to have its own view of things.
Admittedly, on certain points there may be slight differences in perception or interpretation in relations to us. In a ritual away, and almost every year, especially in the matter of religious freedom and combating sects, we realize that the American approach is not exactly the same as our own in France. Simply because each country has its culture, its traditions, in our case a secular tradition, whereas the Americans have a slightly different tradition.
We take note of this report. It’s not something that is prescriptive with regard to France. There are also international mechanisms concerning human rights but that’s something else entirely. The report is an American report that we take and read as such.
Q - Why would we not do a report on human rights in the United States?
As I said, there are reports done by international, government and nongovernmental, bodies which talk about the situation of human rights everywhere, including in the United States.
Q - With regard to Sudan, people are talking today, notably at the African Union, about a UN force to replace or support the current AU force. Is France prepared to participate in such a force, if it’s established, and if so, with what means? A donor conference for Sudan is currently going on in Paris; is France making an explicit link between bilateral or European assistance to Sudan and an improvement in the situation in Darfur, or an improvement in the management of this aid by the Sudanese authorities?
With respect to the situation in Darfur, I think there is great concern within the international community. The minister addressed the subject yesterday when he received the Sudanese participants attending the meeting of the Sudan Consortium in Paris.
He stressed that for us, the Darfur situation is unacceptable. For now, there is the AU force and of course, everything that is being done or will be done must be carried out in close coordination with the AU. Right now, the AU is holding a meeting of the Peace and Security Council. We will pay close attention to what the AU says on this point. Then consultations will continue in New York. I think that on March 13, the Security Council will be holding discussions on Darfur. We expressed an agreement in principle for the UN transfer by the end of the year, but a certain number of modalities must be very closely examined. It is these modalities that the ambassadors will be discussing in New York next week. There is an agreement in principle, but there is also a need to examine in greater depth certain aspects of the question and to work in close cooperation with the AU. We are therefore waiting for the results of the AU Peace and Security Council.
Q - So no decision thus far on French military or logistical participation?
It’s a bit premature, because the transfer has to be confirmed first. We have to see how things will be set up, and then we will be able to assess our participation. Let me remind you that the EU has intervened through what’s called the peace facility in order to help the AU deploy in Darfur. We have therefore already intervened through the EU, but indeed, if the mission is transferred to the UN, we will see how France can contribute, with the understanding that if there is a UN peacekeeping operation, there will also be financial participation.
Q - Are you making an explicit link between your aid to Sudan within the framework of the peace agreement signed last year for southern Sudan and the improvement of the Darfur situation?
We want to act in such a way as to ensure that the peace agreement in southern Sudan works. The UN is already deeply involved in this. As for Darfur itself, the international community wants to send a very clear message. So there is not necessarily a link between the two aspects you mention, but on the question of Darfur, a very clear message has been sent to all the concerned parties, including the Sudanese authorities. As I said, the minister said yesterday that the situation was unacceptable and the international community also intervened to establish a sanctions regime for Darfur and to provide for the involvement of the ICC, the International Criminal Court. It’s a very strong message, but there is not necessarily a link with the two issues you mention.
Q - At 5 P.M., the Sudanese vice president will be received by the Arab Press Club. We’ve heard that NATO may send troops to Darfur. Is France for or against?
I haven’t heard anything about NATO troops being sent to Sudan. The hypothesis of NATO support is one that’s already been raised in the past. Our position on this type of question is quite simple: it’s that we must first ask the opinion of the main parties concerned, i.e., the Africans, and see if that’s something that they find appropriate and desirable. But for now, the question is being asked mainly of the UN and, as I said before, the EU has already intervened in Darfur, which should be taken into consideration.
Q - You said that the modalities have to be specified in order to find out how France will participate. What do you mean by modalities? Can we, in your opinion, impose an international UN peacekeeping force on Sudan if the Sudanese government continues to reject this change?
With respect to your first point, there are many modalities to define: the mandate, the timetable, the size of such a force, the troops and the financial implications, because it’s an operation that is likely to be quite substantial, with consequences for the countries that finance UN peacekeeping operations. Such an operation won’t necessarily be easy to put in place.
As for your second question, what’s important is what the AU will say at the Peace and Security Council. That will take into account the dimension you raised, i.e., the Sudanese dimension. Then it will be up to the UN to decide.
Q - The Iranian matter has been transferred to the Security Council. Can you review the discussions that have already taken place at the Security Council, the P5 meeting? According to France, what are the sequences in this dossier?
First, a question of language. I’m often hearing about a transfer to the Security Council, which is both correct and incorrect. A report was submitted to the Security Council. In fact, first there was an initial letter written by Mr. elBaradei on February 4. As soon as the Board of Governors passed a resolution, Mr. elBaradei sent an initial letter to the UN.
Then, after the last Board of Governors meeting, a new report will be drafted by the IAEA.
The word “transfer” gives the impression that the matter is leaving the IAEA to go to the UN Security Council. As we’ve always said and repeated on several occasions, that isn’t how things should be seen. The Security Council is intervening to strengthen the IAEA’s political authority. The minister repeated that this morning, so let’s be precise in the language we use here.
Indeed, discussions are under way in New York. There are different formats—the P5, but also other formats. I just wanted to note that we French want to continue to involve Germany in all these discussions. Germany is not in the Security Council but it is in the EU3, and we French want to ensure very close cooperation with Germany in this matter, including in New York.
So all these discussions are under way, and there will no doubt be a Security Council meeting soon. I can’t predict the result of that meeting, but as you know—as various sources have indicated—we are considering the idea of a text that sends a very strong message to Iran from the Security Council and the international community.
You ask about a timetable. Quite honestly, I can’t answer you today. It will depend on our consultations and our various positions.
Q - I see that the Americans are more definite than you. They are already saying that there will be a presidential statement, as well as a deadline given to the Iranians for complying with IAEA prescriptions. Are you aware of that? Is that in keeping with your positions?
In this matter, as the minister noted this morning, we hope to move ahead while preserving the unity of the international community. And no one today can say what the result will be, because we have to work together. Certain ideas are circulating, ideas about a presidential statement, but we can’t guarantee that there will be one in the end. Certain ideas are also circulating with respect to giving Iran a certain deadline to meet Security Council demands, but there too, I can’t guarantee what the outcome of the Security Council meeting will be.
As the minister reiterated this morning, our concern is specifically to work with the Russians, the Chinese and the other members of the Security Council.
Q - I think that France’s former ambassador to Iran said he didn’t think it would be so bad for Iran to maintain a small research and enrichment unit. Did someone whisper that in his ear? Does that correspond to your vision of things?
As you yourself say, he is a former ambassador and no longer active. I have the greatest respect for him, but in no case is he expressing an official French position.
Q - This morning, the minister said that sending the matter to the Security Council is not punitive. Does that mean you are ruling out sanctions at this stage?
As the minister noted, the objective is a political one. We must convince the Iranians to return to the negotiating table. We want to exert political pressure on the Iranians, pressure by the UN Security Council. That’s where we are at this stage, and you will have noted that several countries are saying the same thing. There’s no question of sanctions at this stage.
Embassy of France, March 10, 2006