Daily Press Briefing
Statements made by
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson
(excerpts)
(Paris, October 31, 2006)
[Please note that only the original French text issued by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs may be considered official.]
(…)
Q - You’re surely aware of revelations by a British newspaper, The Independent, about Israel’s use of uranium-based weapons in southern Lebanon. Do you have any information to support or invalidate this?
We answered a question about this yesterday at the electronic press briefing. There are reports alleging that Israel used what are called depleted-uranium weapons; these are conventional weapons, not nuclear weapons, and have been used in other conflicts in the past.
What we said in our answer yesterday is that these are conventional weapons which are not prohibited as such but they must be used in conformity with a number of principles in humanitarian law, certain international conventions and instruments, in particular the 1949 Geneva protocols. They must be used with concern as to their eventual consequences for the civilian population. But again, I’ve no confirmation that these weapons were actually used. I simply wanted to recall the general rules that apply to the use of these depleted-uranium weapons.
Q - Do you intend to try and find out more, to check whether these weapons were actually used or not?
It’s up to the Lebanese authorities, who are chiefly concerned, to ask for clarifications on this question. It is probably also for the United Nations. I don’t know whether it’s going to do so, but in my opinion if anyone should ask for clarifications then it’s the Lebanese authorities or the United Nations.
Q - This morning, the president of the Lebanese Republic took a position about the international tribunal to try the suspects in Rafik Hariri’ assassination. Do you have any comment?
We’ve taken note of Mr. Lahoud’s statements. We understand that the Lebanese government is to make a statement shortly on the proposed statute for the international tribunal. The international community is attached to the establishment of such a tribunal, and the work is continuing in accordance with the objective set in resolution 1664. I’ve no more specific comment on Mr. Lahoud’s statement.
Q - So you’ve no comment on his remarks about setting up the tribunal?
No, it’s an objective set by the international community in resolution 1664. A text was prepared. There were consultations at the United Nations. There were contacts with the Lebanese authorities. And once again we hope that this tribunal will be established--that presupposes the statute is approved by the UN Security Council and has the consent of the Lebanese authorities.
Q - President Chirac spoke with Mr. Putin about this issue yesterday. Can you give us any details?
There were contacts with the Russian authorities on this and on other matters. I don’t believe there’s any particularly difficulty on that front. There were perhaps just some points to clarify, especially in the legal domain. Some questions were raised by Russia. Answers were given in New York, and there were contacts with the Russians on the matter. Our sense is that this is not likely to delay the establishment of the tribunal.
Q - Do you have any reaction to the fact that Israeli warplanes flew over Lebanon today in a very pronounced show of force?
Our position on this is well known. We consider that these overflights constitute a violation of Lebanese sovereignty and are contrary to both the spirit and letter of resolution 1701. We therefore call on Israel to put and end to these overflights and we call on all the parties to refrain from any action that could maintain or increase tension.
Q - About the Israeli violations. There was some question about the UN discussing the rules of engagement in the air. Have you made proposals on this or not? Do you consider that the use of depleted-uranium weapons violated the international rules in Lebanon?
With regard to your first point, we’ve already spoken about it. I don’t believe there’s anything new with regard to the rules of engagement in the air. The UN spokesman made a statement. He recalled what these rules were, in particular the use of surface-to air batteries which are there for the self-defense of the UN forces deployed in southern Lebanon. To my knowledge there’s no change in progress in these rules.
Q - How can the violations of Lebanese air space by Israeli aircraft be stopped?
We consider that it’s not necessarily through a change in the rules of engagement that the problems can be resolved for reasons that are perfectly evident. We think the problem must be resolved through dialogue between UNIFIL and the Israeli authorities, through the implementation of arrangements and perhaps also measures to step up patrols in this region, particularly regarding compliance with the arms embargo since the Israelis tell us it’s because the surveillance is not adequate that they need to keep patrolling from the air.
Q - So the two things are linked in your mind?
The two things are linked as a matter of fact as we see it. We’re not the ones making the link but we see that our interlocutors on the Israeli side do, so that’s the reality confronting us.
Q - Either one admits or rejects it?
What’s true is that resolution 1701 requires compliance with the arms embargo, independently of what the Israelis say.
Q - But the Lebanese, including the prime minister and army, confirm that the embargo is being respected. You’re giving credence to which version, the Lebanese or the Israeli?
I don’t have to give credence to a version. From our point of view, the only possible version is that which will be given by the United Nations. It is for the UN to indicate, in the successive reports that will be written and through what UNIFIL observes on the ground, what is happening in regard to compliance with the embargo. So I don’t wish to give credence to one or another version. I’m simply telling you that a link has been made, by Israel in any case, and that we can’t not take it into account.
Q - According to you, has Israel violated international rules, the rules of war, by using depleted uranium in Lebanon?
That’s a question which I can’t answer immediately it’s a complex question, including from a legal standpoint. You have to see which international protocols Israel is signatory to. These are quite complex in international law. What’s clear is that there is no complete prohibition on this type of depleted-uranium weapon, if that’s actually what we’re talking about. There are international principles and conventions which frame the use of such weapons. I can’t tell you right off if Israel’s use of these weapons is in conformity with its commitments or not.
Q - Israel justifies flying over Lebanese territory by its concern to verify compliance with resolution 1701. How do you understand the repeated Israeli provocations concerning the German ships cruising off the Lebanese coast?
Statements were made about this by the Germans, Israelis and also UNIFIL. I gather a number of clarifications were provided, a number of statements made on the Israeli side. I saw that the Germans, who command the naval component of UNIFIL, have on their side let it be understood that the incident was closed. I’ve nothing to add.
Q - You had a much more robust response when French ships were concerned, it seems to me.
No. Germany is commanding the UNIFIL naval component; it’s for Germany to speak. I believe it has done so. It requested clarifications from Israel. A number of calming measures, if I understood correctly, were offered on the Israel side. That’s where matters stand.
(…)
Q - About the Russian comments on the future international tribunal. Do you think they might change the prerogatives of the tribunal?
I’ve nothing to support that. We’ll have to see what the draft statute contains. At this time it hasn’t been made public. The establishment of an international tribunal is necessarily a bit complicated from a legal and also from a political standpoint. All the countries are looking at it, carefully weighing the ins-and-outs. It’s not something that can be set up in up in a day. We have a basis, which is the draft prepared by the UN secretary-general’s legal counsel. Ultimately, it will all have to be approved by the United Nations and by the Lebanese authorities.
Q - You said a moment ago you were waiting for the response from the Lebanese government. The responses of the Lebanese president haven’t been taken into consideration?
I don’t wish to enter into an internal Lebanese debate. Our position is not to engage in polemics on this question. As I said, the agreement of the Lebanese government will be needed, that is as it was planned.
Q - Do you have any comment on the postponement of Paris III?
I find it a bit bizarre that people are talking of a postponement when we’ve never announced the dates. There can’t be any postponement when a date hasn’t been set. We’re working on the dates with all the parties concerned and with the Lebanese authorities first, naturally. We’ll announce in due course the dates of the conference which will be held in Paris as announced.
(…)
Q - Can you confirm that President Chirac will take the chair and that it will be at foreign affairs and finance ministers’ level as the president announced in China?
The president has put a lot into the preparation of this event. Even though it is not my place to make the announcement, it is likely that he will speak at the conference.
As for the participants, they will probably be ministerial level, and it’s not impossible that they will be foreign affairs and finance ministers. But all that remains to be confirmed.
(…)
Embassy of France, October 31, 2006