Daily Press Briefing

Statements made by
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson
(excerpts)

(Paris, November 17, 2006)

[Please note that only the original French text issued by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs may be considered official.]


NORTH KOREA

I will read the communiqué issued last night.

“The French authorities are currently proceeding to make a complete inspection of a ship flying the North Korean flag, the “Am Nok Gang,” in the port of Longoni, Mayotte. This thorough inspection should be completed in coming days.

“Under resolution 1718 adopted by the UN Security Council on October 14, all states are called on to be extra vigilant so as to prevent in particular illegal trafficking in nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, their means of delivery and related materials, as well as conventional weapons from North Korea. The inspection is being carried out in that context.

“France is hereby demonstrating its sustained commitment to fight proliferation. It is taking concrete action in application of all the measures called for in resolution 1718 in order to make a real contribution to regional stability and international peace and security.

“The same vigilance will continue to be applied with regard to all vessels that might be suspected of participating in proliferation activities in the framework of the applicable international law. France urges all states to implement in full the provisions of UNSCR 1718.”

Q - Did you have definite suspicions leading you to inspect the vessel or was it a routine inspection…?

I recall that it was a ship carrying cement that made a port of call in Mayotte and came from Singapore. Permission was sought to dock. The ship was checked when it arrived in the port of Longoni on November 11. There was a check of the crew and the vessel itself by the customs authorities who are proceeding to make a complete and thorough inspection of the vessel which should be completed by this weekend. As we said yesterday, we’ve found nothing suspicious on board but the inspection is continuing.

To answer your question more precisely, I believe the decision to make a thorough inspection is linked to the fact that it’s a North Korean ship. So this is all happening naturally in the context of the monitoring stipulated in 1718 on all trade coming from or heading to North Korea. (…)

Q - Will all North Korean ships coming within reach of French customs be subject to inspection?

We shall continue to apply the same vigilance in the future.

(…)

MIDDLE EAST

Q - Yesterday, in Spain, Mr. Zapatero proposed a new initiative for the Mideast. It seems to be trilateral--was it drafted by Spain, and backed by France and Italy or is it an initiative the three countries worked on together? (…)

I believe President Chirac and Mr. Zapatero commented on this initiative yesterday.

You need first to remember the reason for this initiative. We see a badly deteriorating situation in the Palestinian Territories, in the region. We see spiraling violence setting in. So we think it’s necessary to identify a political response, to see that the international community identifies a political response. We think that in this context the European Union has a role to play to make so as to make its voice heard. This was discussed at the general affairs/external relations council on November 13. A European council at head-of-state-and government level is to be held mid-December. And quite naturally we think we should talk about the Middle East at this European council meeting and that the European Union should propose a number of ideas there.

For the rest, I refer you to the press conference the president gave at which he said he wholeheartedly approved of the initiative launched by Spain and taken together by Spain, Italy and France. So the original idea comes from the Spanish and has now been taken up by the three countries I mentioned. The president also said that these countries didn’t wish to act in isolation. It is very important for us to work with our other European partners—the president mentioned the Germans and British specifically—and for us to work also with Mr. Solana, the High Representative for the common foreign and security policy.

You mentioned an Israeli rejection. I read in the press yesterday comments made anonymously by an Israeli official. Before responding the Israelis have to know exactly what the initiative contains and right now we’re working on it. The president said that the three foreign ministers would be working on it. He said that he would present more detailed ideas at the European council.

We’ve taken note of these initial Israeli reactions. But I think it desirable for us to work together, to present our ideas in greater detail and to be able to talk to all the parties concerned. And at that point we’ll see what the Israeli reaction is.

Q - So the cease-fire suggested in this initiative isn’t immediate?

You saw that the president, in his press conference yesterday, didn’t go into details about the initiative. I think you have to allow things to develop, allow time for the work to be done and then revisit the content. I’m not in a position today to talk specifically about the contents of the initiative. It has to be worked on. That’s why we think it’s premature to talk about rejection. We simply have to work on it, explain things and then we’ll see how the parties concerned react.

Q - Are the three European countries very interested in this initiative or is it simply a proposal? Is it a serious proposal? What will happen for example if the Americans refuse?

Obviously it’s serious. It was proposed yesterday by Mr. Zapatero and by the president who are in contact with Mr. Prodi to take this initiative forward. So it’s a political initiative we’re taking very seriously. People always fall into the same trap, asking how the Americans are going to react if the Europeans propose something. Obviously there will have to be discussions with all the partners concerned. It’s not directed against anyone, of course. It doesn’t aim to exclude anyone. When one takes an initiative, there’s always the risk of being criticized, but there’s even more risk in not taking initiatives. The situation on the ground at this time warrants our seriously raising the question of a political response.

Q - There was a rejection in principle from Israel right off, even before seeing the initiative. Do the Israelis reject every European initiative?

As I said, the comments you’re referring to were made anonymously by an Israeli official. It’s not an official Israeli position. In the comments I saw, I didn’t see the initiative rejected because it came from the European Union. It really would be surprising if that were the case.

The European Union is an actor that is playing a major role in the region. It has been fully understood as such by the various parties concerned. We have contacts with the Palestinians and with the Israelis, and I believe that this is something that is fully recognized. Mr. Solana was in the region not too long ago. The minister as well. There will probably be contacts in the coming weeks with various parties. So we don’t feel that the difficulties are linked to the fact of its being a European initiative.

(…)

Q - The Quartet meeting in Cairo has just ended. Should we interpret this initiative as a failure of the Quartet and the Roadmap?

As far as the Roadmap is concerned, we believe that its principles remain valid. At the same time, the timetable that was drawn up is encountering difficulties in being implemented. The preconditions provided for in the Roadmap are also having trouble being implemented. That is why we feel some fresh impetus is necessary, that we should go beyond the strictly security aspects to take into account the political aspects and propose something.

As for the Quartet, it remains relevant since it brings together important partners of the international community.

Q - Does that mean a new roadmap?

I saw the statements by the Egyptian minister, for example, saying that the Roadmap should be rewritten. Again, what I said is that the principles remain valid, that the timetable hasn’t gone as planned and that there may be a sequence of steps that have to be rethought, with a view not just to security but also the political aspect.

Q - Has a date been set for this initiative?

As I said, we’re working with a view to the European council on December 14 and 15.

Q - And do you think the Arab countries have a role to play?

Obviously, I don’t see how we can talk about the peace process in the Mideast without a role for the Arab countries. At this point it’s an initiative that needs to mature within the European Union. Then of course there’ll be contacts with the Arab countries, with the countries in the region.

Q - Does the initiative focus on just the Palestinian question or might it be enlarged to the Syrian or Lebanese questions?

You’ll have to refer to what Mr. Zapatero and the president said. As it’s been presented, it’s fairly focused, as you saw, on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Q - Why, is there talk about the kidnapped soldiers in Lebanon?

I don’t wish to go into the details of the imitative, but what Mr. Zapatero discussed is the question of prisoners, which also concerns the Territories, and especially Corporal Shalit.

US/INDIA

Q - Do you have any reaction to the green light from the American Senate to the nuclear cooperation agreement between the US and India? (…)

(…) We hailed the agreement between the US and India, as you know, when it was concluded on March 2. At the time the president welcomed the agreement, seeing it as a gain for the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the fight against global warming.

We had said at the time that France and India also intended to conclude a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement. So to answer your question, we understand the logic of this move which we see in the context of developing nuclear energy for peaceful ends, with a number of safeguards that are under discussion.

Q - The policy reflects a double-standard with other countries like Iran. (…)

In the case of India there is no bending the NPT. We have stated clearly that we do not support India’s military nuclear program. We do not recognize India as having nuclear-weapon-state status and so we remain very committed to the goal of universality for the NTP. There is no question, in the case of India, of waiving the text of the NPT itself, nor the IAEA rules. There are talks under way, specifically within the NSG, the nuclear suppliers’ group, to work on the applicable guarantees for civil cooperation with India.

(…)

SUDAN/CHAD

Q - According to the UN secretary-general, Khartoum has agreed to the deployment of a mixed force in Sudan. Do you have any comment?

There was a meeting in Addis Ababa last night and it has ended. As you know, France took part in it since the P5 from the Security Council were there. A communiqué was issued after the meeting.

Among the positive elements that emerged from the meeting is the fact that there’s a certain consensus on reviving the political process by also involving parties that are not at this time signatories of the Abuja Accord. That’s an important element. In addition there’s a consensus for obtaining a cease-fire that’s credible and, as the secretary-general said, some progress was seen on the establishment of what is being called a hybrid force, i.e. a force in which there would be both African and UN elements so that it’s as robust as possible.

There’s been some progress in this direction, we’re not yet at the end of the road, but there are positive elements in spite of everything. In addition there’s a reaffirmation of the regional dimension in the final communiqué, saying it’s a dimension that must be taken into account in the discussions. Obviously you shouldn’t consider all the problems resolved after this meeting, but there was progress towards this suggestion for a hybrid force, thanks particularly to the UN secretary-general.

Q - The French idea for a force on the border between Chad and the Central African Republic wasn’t adopted?

As I said, there’s a reference in the communiqué, in paragraph 23, to the regional dimension of the conflict, saying that the regional instruments such as the Tripoli mechanism must be re-energized, and also that all countries must work together for a peaceful solution in Darfur and refrain from actions that run counter to this goal. The regional dimension is also mentioned in paragraph 34 of the same communiqué. So it appears, but it would be going too far to say that the suggestion for a specific force is mentioned. The idea isn’t mentioned as such in the final communiqué.

Q - It’s no longer valid? What do you want?

In our view, it’s essential to give substance to this regional dimension. It must of course be done with the African Union and with the countries concerned, and we think it is necessary to think about an international presence, a force or other mechanisms to avoid the problems that we’re seeing now.

(…)

IRAN/NUCLEAR ISSUE

Q - The Russian foreign minister said today the Iranian dossier should be handled by the IAEA not the Security Council. I’d like your comment.

I’ve not seen Mr. Lavrov’s statement specifically, but it’s not the first time we’ve heard that kind of thing from the Russians. In this case the issue is not whether it is handled by the one or the other, both are instruments of the international community, and the IAEA isn’t being taken off the Iranian question. The proof is that the board is going to be meeting, as you know, and there’s an IAEA report that’s been prepared for it. So the IAEA hasn’t relinquished the matter. It’s just that it was agreed with Mr. Lavrov in Paris, on July 12, that we would work on a resolution , 1696, and that if at a certain point it appeared that Iran was not complying with its obligations, especially to the IAEA, at that point we would have to move on to the Security Council phase, which doesn’t mean, I repeat, that the matter has been taken away from the IAEA.

In our view, there’s no contradiction between the two, The fact that it’s being dealt with at a given point by the Security Council doesn’t mean that the IAEA has relinquished it. The IAEA will of course retain a very important role in order to continue to inform IAEA member countries, and this will be the central element, it’s clear, in any solution in this matter. If there is a solution one day, it will obviously have to be very largely guaranteed by the IAEA.

Q - In the circumstances, are you even more worried after the recent discovery of traces of enriched uranium in Iran beyond what was expected, and by the IAEA inspectors’ statement that Iran is still refusing to cooperate in certain areas?

We have read the IAEA report which was sent to us by the IAEA director-general and confirms that Iran has continued and even speeded up its enrichment program since August, that Iran has installed a second cascade of centrifuges, that Iran is still denying the IAEA access to certain critical sites and also still refusing to answer a number of questions, the so-called pending questions, which the IAEA submitted some time ago.

The Agency itself concludes that it is not possible for it to confirm the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program. You ask if we are worried. We have taken note of this report and the conclusions the IAEA draws. This strengthens our idea: it is essential for the Security Council to enter into the picture and take measures against Iran./.

Embassy of France, November 17, 2006