Syria/France-Russia

FRANCE/RUSSIA/SYRIA

M. FABIUS – Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. I’m pleased to welcome in Paris today my Defence Minister colleague, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Anatoly Serdyukov, Russia’s Defence Minister. This is the 11th session of the Franco-Russian Cooperation Council for Security Issues. This Council is a wholly unique forum for dialogue which illustrates the special, important relationship linking Russia and France. (…)

During my bilateral meeting with Sergei Lavrov and the plenary session, which brought all four of us together, we talked among other things about issues to do with Syria, Iran, Mali, the fight against piracy, Afghanistan, relations between the European Union and Russia and between NATO and Russia, and Franco-Russian bilateral issues.

Our shared objective is to find as many areas of agreement as possible between two countries which traditionally have been friends and are both permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These areas of agreement are found particularly on Mali and Afghanistan, and the fight against piracy, but they aren’t the only subjects on which areas of agreement exist.

At any rate, our meeting was useful and we’ll be meeting again soon. Indeed, many France-Russia meetings are scheduled over the period ahead, particularly the one between the two prime ministers, taking place very soon. When we’ve finished this press conference, we’re together going to join President Hollande for a meeting at the Elysée. (…)

M. LE DRIAN – My colleague Anatoly Serdyukov and I had our first meeting. In addition to what Laurent Fabius said about how our meetings this morning went overall, we both tackled, in particular, three questions directly linked to our responsibilities.

AFGHANISTAN

Concerning Afghanistan, I told Anatoly how France is carrying out her withdrawal and how we’re approaching the future. I also had the opportunity to thank him for the assistance Russia provided in logistical support for our withdrawal, in particular via the Northern Distribution Network.

MISTRAL-CLASS LHD SALE

Secondly, we took stock of our armaments cooperation and were able to conclude that the plan to sell two Mistral-class LHDs was proceeding properly. We noted this with satisfaction. We also talked about other possible avenues of cooperation.

MARITIME PIRACY

Finally, we talked together about the fight against maritime piracy. This is an important issue for the Horn of Africa and Indian Ocean area, where we already have very useful cooperation, mainly in the European Union framework. We’re taking part in three European initiatives there, especially the best-known one: the Atalanta initiative. It’s a prevention and stop-and-search initiative carried out by European navies on the one hand, and other navies – including Russia’s – on the other, to protect sea routes in that part of the world. Together we agreed to go on working in the same way since it’s producing very concrete results and we’ve seen a drop in piracy for three years now in that part of the world. So we’ve got to continue this approach. (…)

SYRIA

Q. – (in Russian)

M. FABIUS – You ask me if France is in fact giving weapons to the Syrian rebels – the answer is “no”.

RUSSIA/ANTI-MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM

Q. – On the subject of anti-missile defence, why isn’t France giving legal guarantees to ensure that this anti-missile defence [system] won’t be directed against Russia?

M. FABIUS – France’s position, which was reaffirmed in particular at the Chicago summit – as the French Defence Minister quite rightly said – at the Chicago summit, is to say that the anti-missile system can be accepted under certain conditions. There are six conditions set by the French President, and one of these is the fact that we believe anti-missile defence cannot be conceived or put into practice to target Russia. (…)

SYRIA/NATO/JIHADISTS/LIBERATED AREAS

Q. – Recently, a media report from a Western television channel revealed that NATO-armed jihadists were fighting in Syria. Can you confirm to us the presence of French soldiers or jihadist fighters of French nationality in Syria?

Furthermore, a few weeks ago France welcomed representatives of liberated areas in Syria here. Do you recognize that there are liberated areas in Syria?

(…)

M. FABIUS – No NATO weapons have been delivered to a Syrian party. As for French soldiers allegedly on Syrian soil, the answer is obviously and clearly “no”.

I’d like to say that, as regards the liberated areas – since this is a concept which has been used a great deal by the French in particular – we’re providing material assistance to restore basic infrastructure in those areas, such as, for example, industrial bakeries, purification systems, etc.

What are we talking about? There are territories with differently controlled areas. In some places there’s Mr Assad’s regime; in others there are members of the resistance. There are areas which suffered severe attacks and where, in the end, the resistance won. There are also areas controlled by the resistance where no clashes took place with the Bashar al-Assad regime because they were out of range. In some of these areas, there are councils which have been elected by the people and which are starting to govern them.

We thought that rather than giving humanitarian aid – which can often be misappropriated or doesn’t exactly go to those who need it and whom it was intended for – we can provide assistance directly to those liberated areas, especially because they may, to a certain extent, prefigure a potential free Syria, where everyone will have to elect their representatives. So we’re providing material, non-military assistance to those liberated areas.

So are other countries, such as Canada, Croatia and others that think it’s a good way of proceeding because there are considerable humanitarian problems, and not only in Syria but also in Jordan, Lebanon and elsewhere. We want to help resolve these humanitarian problems, and in order to do so we’d like our aid to reach the population so that they can get warmth, water, food and medical treatment. (…)

SYRIA/GENEVA AGREEMENT/BASHAR AL-ASSAD

Q. – During the meeting did you manage to overcome your differences of interpretation of the Geneva agreement, particularly on one specific point, namely whether Bashar al-Assad leaves or remains in power?

M. FABIUS – Yes, we did of course discuss this point, because Sergei Lavrov and I were present when the Geneva agreement was drawn up. We debated it and we signed it together.

However, as you’ve emphasized yourself, there was a difference of interpretation following the Geneva meeting: we believed there could be no solution if Mr Bashar al-Assad remained in power, whereas our Russian colleagues – Sergei will correct me if I’m wrong – said it wasn’t a question of what was wanted, because for the time being Mr Bashar al-Assad was there and therefore had to be reckoned with.

That’s clearly one of the major difficulties. That’s why – even though there may be a difference of interpretation on this – there are nevertheless points on which we entirely agree.

On the one hand, the longer the Syrian conflict lasts the more victims there are, sadly, and we must think about them first; the harder the conflict becomes to resolve, because it exacerbates tensions, particularly religious ones; the more people totally alien to the conflict enter or risk entering Syria; the more difficult one of Syria’s distinct characteristics, namely the coexistence of different communities, becomes, at a time when both we and the Russians believe it’s absolutely essential that the rights of the communities making up Syria be safeguarded. We say we won’t be able to find any solutions that involve Mr Bashar al-Assad remaining in power.

There must be a change, but at the same time the institutions must be able to continue functioning, because otherwise we risk having the same process in Syria as in Iraq, where the leaders were changed and there was such a vacuum that atrocities were witnessed on both sides for years and years.

That’s the whole problem and that’s why – even though, again, we have differences that are known – I don’t think I’m misrepresenting the facts by saying we’d both like to see a union of opposition forces. Indeed, if people want to talk, the parties talking should be as close together as possible.

So yes, a difference of appreciation, because from our point of view we don’t see how this discussion could begin while Mr Bashar al-Assad is in place, whereas our Russian colleagues are saying a solution must be found that takes Bashar al-Assad into account.

But on the desire for the conflict to end, for progress to be made towards a ceasefire that can be guaranteed, for solutions to be found to ensure the communities can coexist, for Syria to be free and for an extremely dangerous regional contagion to be avoided, there are points of convergence between France and Russia. In any case, we’re in contact, we’re talking and we’d also, of course, like the Security Council to be able to play its role, because it has a very important role to play in this crisis. The Security Council must regain its role in order to arrive at a satisfactory solution in Syria. (…)

Indeed, I remember very well the phrase that was removed at our Russian colleagues’ request. At the same time, they were negotiations, and like all negotiations they were the fruit of compromise, and consequently another phrase was added, if I remember rightly, saying the “governing body” – the entity which was going to govern – must be appointed on the basis of mutual consent among all the parties, which isn’t strictly the definition I’d give of [the regime of] Mr Bashar al-Assad.

What’s important now, over and above different people’s interpretations, is to try and forge ahead to find solutions, to ensure there’s a ceasefire which is complied with and that there are changes enabling the Syrian people to regain their freedom. From this viewpoint, both the Russians and the French are placing their trust in the mission of Lakhdar Brahimi, who was in your country two days ago, I believe; I spoke to him on the telephone, he’s in Beijing today and is visiting a number of capital cities. When the time comes, having listened to all the parties, he’ll be able to make proposals which we hope will enable the current serious crisis to be overcome. (…)

Q. – Is there a possibility of having a “Geneva 2”, with a solution France could perhaps find with your Russian partners?

M. FABIUS – France is open to any helpful solution. What’s happening in Syria is an appalling tragedy: nearly 35,000 dead, hundreds of thousands of displaced people and hundreds of thousands of refugees too. You have not only a risk but an actual conflict which is becoming more and more regional and even international. So, for every reason, it’s an absolute necessity to find a solution to this conflict, and whenever France can help find a solution she’ll do so. We place great trust in Mr Brahimi, who’s been appointed by the United Nations, we are of course totally supportive and proactive, and of course we’ll continue our contacts with the Russians./.