Daily Press Briefing
Statements made by
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson
(excerpts)
(Paris, October 17, 2006)
[Please note that only the original French text issued by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs may be considered official.]
(…)
France strongly condemns the attack on October 16 which killed about a hundred and injured over 150 Sri Lankan military personnel.
It offers its sincere condolences to the victims’ families and friends. It extends its wishes to the many injured for their recovery. France expresses its profound sympathy to the Sri Lanka authorities.
France is particularly concerned about the continued spiraling violence over the past few weeks. There can be no solution to the conflict in Sri Lanka through arms, and only a negotiated political agreement will end it. France therefore asks all the parties to end the violence and quickly resume negotiations on a political solution.
(…)
Q - Can we have more details regarding the announcement from the president’s office yesterday about an international conference on aid to Lebanon?
It’s the Lebanese prime minister, Mr. Siniora, who said that the conference would probably be held in Paris in January, and as you said, Mr. Chirac’s office confirmed we are ready to host the conference. I can’t give you much in the way of details today. Of course we’ll have to work on planning the conference with the Lebanese authorities, the main international organizations and all the countries interested in Lebanon’s reconstruction. So it’s with all these partners that the conference format, objectives and procedures will have to be worked out.
I can just recall that we had a conference in Stockholm on August 31, 2006, at which the purpose was to urgently collect contributions to help Lebanon at the humanitarian level. A total of $940 million in donations were pledged at that time. France for its part announced aid of 40 million euros.
We see the next conference on Lebanon’s economic reconstruction as a new stage which continues the international mobilization begun at the Stockholm conference and should focus on Lebanon’s medium and long-term reconstruction, thereby helping to stabilize the country. It must, in our view, afford the international community an opportunity to show its solidarity with Lebanon over an extended period.
We’re aiming to look further ahead; we’re going beyond the humanitarian assistance which was the purpose of the Stockholm conference, we’re really talking about Lebanon’s reconstruction and stabilization in the long run.
Q - A few years ago Paris II was a great success. A lot of countries came. Some $4.4 billion was pledged for Lebanon’s reconstruction. We don’t know how the money was used. There were a lot of suspicions about the use of that money. What guarantees will France demand regarding the use of the money? Secondly, what good is rebuilding unless there are guarantees that Israel won’t repeat an operation like July and August this year?
With regard to your first point, I don’t know exactly how the money from the Paris II conference was used. I imagine there have been reports.
Clearly, in the context of the next conference—I don’t know how it will be called, Paris III for example—we’ll be paying very close attention to the aspects you just mentioned, i.e. the way in which the money is used, in the context of which program, to support which reforms, with which guarantees for transparency. These are all questions that will come up and that the conference will have to address. I believe the Lebanese government and Mr. Siniora want to see all these concerns taken on board to ensure the conference is a success.
As for your second point, obviously there is a very strong link between the political aspect and the economic. The conference has a virtue on the economic front but it will also have a virtue on the political front, which is to show the international community’s support for Lebanon. That is something important independently of the financial amounts that will be announced. Obviously reconstruction also implies strengthening the cessation of hostilities, moving on to a sustainable cease-fire, so there can be a lasting political solution. Everyone is well aware of that.
Q - What level will it be held at?
President Chirac intends, as he said, to be very involved personally in the organization of the conference as will the foreign minister, Mr. Douste-Blazy. Then we’ll see for the other participants at what level it’s held.
Q - Is it France which will issue the invitations?
That remains to be decided. We have to see who will chair and co-chair the conference, and how the invitations will be issued. All these points must be clarified now.
Q - The Americans and British refused to take part in Paris II. Are you hoping they’ll take part in the next conference?
Obviously, we consider the more countries willing to make a contribution to Lebanon’s reconstruction, the better it will be. And both countries you just referred to are important. There will also have to be other European countries, other Western countries, and also states from the region and the Gulf.
NORTH KOREA
Q - What is France's reaction to the reports coming from Japan and South Korea according to which North Korea is apparently preparing for a new nuclear test? And also to the reports apparently confirming that the first one really was a nuclear test?
As for a second test, I haven't any specific or new information. We are indeed hearing a number of things from different sources. We are obviously following the situation very closely. It goes without saying that a new test by North Korea would be an exceptionally irresponsible act on that country's part, which would only increase North Korea's isolation and would demand an adequate response from the international community. In particular, in that situation the Security Council would have to envisage new sanctions against North Korea. Very clearly, we're sending North Korea a warning on that point.
As for the first test, I've no definitive conclusion to give you. You've seen, as I have, a number of reports pointing to confirmation of that test's nuclear nature.
Q - Does this change your position?
No, it doesn't change our position. As we have said from the outset, regardless of what this test actually was, the fact that North Korea is saying openly and publicly, displaying a certain pride in the fact, that it has conducted a test, and insisting that it intends pursuing this path justifies a very vigorous reaction from the international community. So, in any case, that doesn't change the way we see things.
Q - Does France intend to participate in the naval operations off Korea to inspect the ships?
You've seen the resolution. The arrangement is that every country participate in these inspections in international waters, with the resources it has at its disposal. We aren't establishing a specific force. Every country will contribute, insofar as it is able and with due regard to international law, to the inspection of the ships. As regards the French ships, I don't know exactly where they are located, you'd have to ask the Defense Ministry. Obviously, if French ships are in a position to inspect North Korean boats, they will make their contribution to this operation.
Q - China has declared that it wouldn't be participating in the inspections. What's your reaction?
I haven't seen it stated as clearly as that.
Q - The Chinese ambassador to the UN stated it.
We have this resolution, UNSCR 1718, which is a strong resolution under Chapter VII. All the United Nations member states have to contribute to its implementation.
(…)
Q - What do you plan to do in view of the seriousness of the situation in Gaza?
We issued a statement yesterday. I don’t know what the toll is now but since the end of June nearly 250 Palestinians, mostly civilians, have been killed in the Territories. It’s very troubling. What we said yesterday is that Israel has to cease its actions, particularly in populated areas, particularly against civilians. It is also essential for the Palestinian Authority to work to stop the firing of rockets since it’s that which, on the Israeli side, justifies these military operations. That is the message we’re giving the Israelis. We’re not alone in saying this, others are also.
There’s a general affairs/external relations council meeting in Brussels today, and I imagine this point will be discussed and a position taken by the EU. In addition, as we’ve said repeatedly, we’re also making this international mechanism work. Credits are being effectively committed. There are nearly 160,000 Palestinian families who have benefited or will be benefiting from the social allowances paid under the mechanism. That’s what we’re doing concretely.
Q - It took several months to get the Quartet together in order to discuss the Palestinian question. (…) Are we to consider the Quartet dead, that it no longer serves any purpose and that there should be a new political approach to the Israeli-Palestinian question?
That’s not our view of things We consider the Quartet is still a very useful framework. When you look at the Quartet’s composition, you see the actors are very important in the region. We consider that the Quartet is still wholly relevant and valid. If there’s been no development, it is in part, as you said, because there’s been no agreement on the Palestinian side on the national unity government. It’s an element which looked promising and which has not materialized. Obviously no one can do it for the Palestinians. There can be mediation, as Qatar attempted a while back. But ultimately there will have to be an agreement among the Palestinians, some movement on the Palestinian side. At that point, the Quartet will be able to help take things forward.
Q - Today is a European Union agreement envisaged on the sanctions against Iran?
The 25 agree on the fact that we didn’t get a result from the discussions between Messrs Solana and Larijani. The door of dialogue remains open, but we’re moving on to a new stage, i.e. a discussion at the United Nations Security Council on the measures under article 41 of the Charter. Without having second sight or anticipating what’s going to happen in Luxembourg, this is what should come out of the Council.
Q - In your contacts with the Russians and Chinese on this question, are positions on the sanctions against Iran moving closer together or are there still differences?
It seems to us that there was broad agreement among the Six on the idea that we now have to move on to a new stage and start working on a draft resolution. I can’t tell you today that there’s agreement on all the details of the measures which must be taken. That wouldn’t be accurate. We now have to work on these measures and be able to decide on them in detail.
Q - Are the British drawing up the draft?
I don't know who is doing the actual writing. I have in fact seen that there's a British draft resolution, but what's important is to work together on a text.
Q - Can you tell us about the meeting between Mr Douste-Blazy and Mr. Foxman?
**
It was part of the regular contacts the minister has with American and global Jewish organizations. The meeting afforded an opportunity to discuss how anti-Semitic questions are being handled in France. I believe Mr. Foxman noted the French authorities’ very vigorous response to anti-Semitic acts these past few years. He welcomed the very vigorous action by the French authorities in this domain. That was one of the subjects discussed. In addition, I believe they spoke about a number of international questions, particularly the situation in the Middle East.
Q - The Turkish foreign minister has accused France of adding a new criterion to the Copenhagen criteria for Turkey’s entry into the EU. Do you have any comment?
I’ve not seen Mr Gul’s remarks saying that. Ms Colonna, who was in Brussels last week, already replied to the question. We’ve already discussed it here. We’re not adding a new condition, a new criterion. The criteria are the Copenhagen ones and before starting negotiations with Turkey we established a negotiating framework on which the 25 concurred. We’re not adding a new condition, that’s perfectly clear, it’s not up to us to do so. What we are saying is that recognition of the Armenian genocide is important for Turkey, as a labor of remembrance, and an important element in the process towards closer ties between Turkey and the European Union. Our position on that hasn’t changed.
(…)
Embassy of France, October 17, 2006