Daily Press Briefing
Statements made by
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson
(excerpts)
(Paris, October 23, 2006)
[Please note that only the original French text issued by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs may be considered official.]
(…)
I would like to read the communiqué from Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy, issued Friday, October 20, in regard to President Uribe’s statements:
“France has taken note of President Alvaro Uribe’s statements. As it has done several times in the past, particularly through President Chirac, it expresses its opposition to any operation to rescue the hostages by force.
“At a time when everyone was inclined to optimism due to the recent statements by the Colombian president and the FARC, I remain convinced that a peaceful solution is possible. I invite the actors to re-establish dialogue to prevent the hostages’ families from losing all hope.”
On Monday, October 23, European Affairs Minister Delegate Catherine Colonna will meet with attendees at the 26th conference of Fulbright commission directors in Europe, which is being held in Paris from October 23 to 26, 2006.
The Fulbright program, which started after the end of World War II and is co-financed by the US and its partners, led to the development of academic and cultural exchanges between the United States and its various partners in Europe, including France, by financing international scholarships for students, young researchers and university teachers on both sides of the Atlantic. Representatives of the 25 European Union member states, along with representatives from Russia, Ukraine and Turkey, will be participating in the meeting, which will also be attended on the French side by Senator Paul Girod, chair of the France-US interparliamentary group in the Senate.
The American delegation will be led by Dina Habib Powell, a senior official in the State Department responsible for education and culture.
(…)
Q - Several Tibetans were killed last week by Chinese border guards while trying to cross into Nepal. What is France’s reaction? Will the minister bring up this up when he travels to China with the president?
These events, which are unacceptable and reprehensible, were discussed, specifically at our initiative, at the European Union/China dialogue on human rights in Beijing on October 19, in order to clearly show our commitment and that of the European Union to respect for human rights in China.
We have taken note of China’s pledge to conduct an inquiry to clarify this case.
The human rights situation is always discussed with the Chinese authorities at high-level meetings.
Q - The Sudanese government has decided to expel the UN special envoy to Khartoum, Jan Pronk, giving him three days to leave Sudan. Britain has condemned the decision and called on Khartoum to reconsider. One, what is France’s reaction? And two, if Khartoum does expel the UN envoy, will the minister still make his trip to Sudan?
After the letter from the Sudanese authorities to the UN secretary-general requesting that Jan Pronk leave within 72 hours, the UN secretary-general’s special representative for Sudan was recalled to UN headquarters in New York for consultations.
We regret the Sudanese government’s attitude.
We hope that the dialogue with the United Nations will continue, in the spirit of cooperation shown by President Beshir in his letter of October 3, 2006 to the UN secretary-general.
Foreign Affairs Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy’s proposed visit to Sudan is still on given the importance we attach to dialogue with the Sudanese authorities.
Q - The foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia will meet in Paris tomorrow to discuss the conflict in Upper Karabakh. Mr. Douste-Blazy will meet with both of them. What are you expecting from this meeting after the experience at Rambouillet (last February) which seemed to be successful?
Since the beginning of 2006 the American, French and Russian co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group have been endeavoring to persuade the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan to back the fundamental principles of the future solution to the conflict in Upper Karabakh.
A first draft of this “document of principles” was examined at the Rambouillet summit on February 10. A second version was presented to the two heads of state by the mediators at the summit they held in Bucharest on June 5. The heads of state and government of the G8 countries, at their meeting in St Petersburg, invited the parties to re-examine it before the end of the year.
The new round of negotiations on this working document was begun by the mediators in Moscow on October 6 and will continue in Paris tomorrow. The aim is to get the parties’ reactions to the additional proposals put forward by the mediators, with the expectation of finalizing an enhanced version of the document of principles. The latest version would be submitted to the two presidents at a new meeting, which would be their third in 2006.
Q - The Israeli government has confirmed the use of phosphorous shells in the war against the Hezbollah. The Red Cross equates these shells with chemical weapons so they’re banned. What is the French position on both this Israeli case and in general?
At this point we don’t have any exact information about the precise nature of the phosphorous shells Israel confirms it used in Lebanon. We note that according to the Israeli minister responsible for relations with Parliament, the use of weapons “conforms to international law.”
Depending on the characteristics of these phosphorous shells, the munitions could be described as:
- either chemical weapons, which would then come under the 1925 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases and the Convention for the Prohibition of Chemical Weaspons (CWC)):
- or incendiary weapons, which would then come under Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons ( or convention on inhumane weapons).
Israel ratified the 1925 Protocol. On the other hand, Israel is a signatory to but has not ratified the Convention for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Lastly, Israel is a state party to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons but has not ratified its Protocol III on incendiary weapons.
We call for compliance with the international commitments that have been taken./.
Embassy of France, October 23, 2006