South Korea / Proliferation
North Korea / Nuclear
Iran / Nuclear Issue
Pakistan
Visit by the Dalai Lama
South Korea / Proliferation
We welcome the announcement by the Republic of Korea that it supports the “Paris Principles” which form the basis of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). The Republic of Korea thus becomes the 95 th State to subscribe to this concrete and operational initiative since its introduction in 2003.
The Proliferation Security Initiative, introduced in 2003, aims to prevent the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and the components of such weapons. It aims to establish and strengthen operational and effective cooperation between voluntary States in order to prevent these shipments transported by sea, air and land.
France has been firmly committed from the outset to this operational initiative which effectively complements, by supporting international law and existing mechanisms, the national and international efforts to combat proliferation. It hosted the September 2003 meeting in Paris which led to the adoption of a Statement on the Interdiction Principles that established the objectives of the initiatives and the commitments by the States to achieve them, known as the Paris Principles.
France also hosted the Operational Experts Group (OEG) meeting on September 25 and 26, 2008, in Paris during the French presidency of the Council of the European Union. This meeting brought together the 20 countries that are most committed to the Proliferation Security Initiative.
Can you tell us how many countries participate in the PSI?
There are currently 95 members now that South Korea has joined. We can give you the list.
Is Iran one of these members?
No
And the United States?
Yes, of course. The last Operational Experts Group was, incidentally, held in Miami approximately ten days ago.
What does it involve?
It provides a mechanism for voluntary cooperation between the 95 participating States, allowing the exchange of intelligence and information, and strengthening operational cooperation between the States in order to monitor and prevent all activities that facilitate the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and the components of such weapons. There are discussions with regard to the monitoring of means of transport, customs cooperation and legal cooperation in order to coordinate, ensure consistency of and mobilize the efforts of the participating States to combat proliferation.
Is it within this framework that maritime assets have been deployed near North Korea to intercept shipments to the region?
You know that we do not give details about operations that may have been carried out but obviously there is an operational component to this operation. This PSI action has an operational component which includes measures to deal with the issue of transporting weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and the components of such weapons.
But there was, however, a well publicized operation a few years ago when missiles from North Korea were intercepted.
Several successful operations have in fact been carried out over the last several years.
Can you be a member of the PSI without signing the TNP?
The country you are thinking of is a member of the PSI but not a member of the TNP. This does not prevent the exchange of information or operational activities to prevent the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and the components of such weapons. It is a matter of combating proliferation.
As you have seen and as we hoped for, a Security Council meeting took place yesterday. It concluded with a press statement by the President of the Security Council, who, in May, is the Russian ambassador to the United Nations.
This statement reflects the Security Council members’ strong opposition to and condemnation of the nuclear test which North Korea conducted yesterday. The statement underlines that this was a clear violation of resolution 1718 and reaffirms the demand for North Korea to comply with its commitments under resolution 1718 as well as resolution 1695.
This demand is coupled with another demand which calls for all States to comply with their commitments under these resolutions.
The Security Council members decided unanimously to immediately work on a new resolution in view of the Security Council’s responsibilities with regard to proliferation.
We would like a strong response from the Security Council since, as you know, resolution 1540 under chapter VII clearly stresses that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems constitutes a threat to peace and international security.
That is why, in addition to reaffirming our condemnation of the nuclear test conducted yesterday, I am stating today that we condemn the missile launches that were conducted this morning by North Korea. We are demanding that North Korea abstain from any new provocation and any action that may increase tension in the region.
We make fine statements with regard to the activities of North Korea, which has been a rogue state for decades, but we do nothing. Now we are faced with our responsibilities in the Security Council. What is France demanding in terms of sanctions? What does France want in terms of implementing chapter VII?
I already stated this. We want a strong response from the Security Council.
We welcome the fact that Security Council members decided unanimously to work on a new resolution.
We stated yesterday that we would like further sanctions to be imposed against North Korea and we are continuing to consult with the members of the Security Council with regard to the Council’s response.
We are open to all options with regard to expanding and strengthening the sanctions.
How will you spare the people of North Korean from the impact of these sanctions since they have already suffered from poverty for years?
Absolutely. The North Korean regime is directly responsible for the extreme conditions of poverty and destitution, and the serious food crisis in North Korea. The sanctions that have been determined have always been aimed at the persons and entities associated with proliferation activities in North Korea. This does not prevent the United Nations, in particular, and some of the NGOs or even States, from acting bilaterally to provide humanitarian aid or food aid to the North Korean population which should not have to suffer any more.
Can you tell us more about the new sanctions or the expansion of sanctions? Does that mean an expansion of the list of targeted persons?
As I said, we are open to these options. We are continuing with our consultations but we cannot give you more details.
We would like the Security Council to give a strong response.
Can you give us your ideas?
We are sharing them with our partner members of the Security Council.
What is the time frame?
I think that the presidential statement clearly indicated that we would work quickly. I will not specify a time frame but the idea is to act quickly.
The Iranian president rejected the freeze you’ve wanted since last year, as well as the resumption of talks. What’s your reaction?
We are still awaiting a response to the proposals made by the E3+3 a month and a half ago, following the London meeting. We haven’t received a reply because Iran did not follow up on our proposals for a meeting. We regret this situation. For us, it is up to Iran to choose cooperation rather than growing isolation. We therefore hope to receive a response to our proposals to meet in order to resume discussions on the nuclear issue.
Are you waiting for a written response? Because yesterday it was clear that the answer was no.
A proposal was made and conveyed to the Iranian negotiator by Javier Solana. We are waiting for a response to that proposal.
You’re waiting for a response on the meeting, not on the freeze?
We are waiting for a response to the proposals for a meeting that we made to the Iranian authorities through the Iranian negotiator.
What the president says doesn’t matter to you?
I didn’t say that. I said such remarks were not going in the right direction.
We are waiting for the Iranian negotiator’s response to the proposals conveyed to him by Javier Solana following the meeting of the political directors of the Six.
It was announced today that President Sarkozy would travel to Pakistan in September. Can you clarify what took place between him and Mr. Zardari during the latter’s visit to France on May 15? The Pakistani foreign affairs minister, Mr. Qureshi, announced there was an agreement between France and Pakistan on the transfer of civilian nuclear technology to Pakistan based on the agreement signed by the Indians and the Americans and subsequently between the Indians and the French. Can you confirm that? Will such an agreement be formally signed in September during the President’s visit?
With regard to your first point, I have indeed seen reports from Abu Dhabi, where the President is at the moment, but they cite the Office of the President as their source. These remarks were obviously made off the record, so this is not an official announcement. I cannot officially confirm plans for that visit. It is up to the Elysée to do that.
As for the meeting with President Zardari, it provided an opportunity to discuss Pakistan’s current situation with respect to the military operations undertaken by the Pakistani army in the Swat Valley region. The humanitarian repercussions were mentioned—as you know, several hundred thousand or even more than a million people were displaced because of the fighting. We announced that France would allocate €12.5 million to Pakistan to help people who were forced to flee their homes.
With regard to cooperation on civilian nuclear energy, it was clearly specified that these discussions focused on civilian nuclear safety and nothing else. That is the current status of this issue. Other discussions will surely take place with the Pakistani authorities, but this cooperation clearly concerned civilian nuclear safety alone.
So you can confirm that for now there is no agreement or agreement in principle on the transfer of civilian nuclear technology to Pakistan?
That was not the focus of the discussion, which, as far as we’re concerned, dealt with safety issues.
The Dalai Lama will be received on June 6 at the Hôtel de Ville, where a ceremony will be held despite the rather emphatic statements by the Chinese foreign affairs minister. Do you think this visit could hurt French-Chinese bilateral relations? Will there be a meeting with someone at the Quai d’Orsay?
The Dalai Lama is making a European tour that will take him to Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands and France. He will be in the French capital to receive the title of honorary citizen of the city of Paris, which he was awarded in 2008. This initiative was taken independently by the City of Paris.
As for relations between France and China, you are aware that we have a relationship based on trust that is part of a strategic partnership whose strengthening was clearly set forth as an objective during the discussion between the two presidents in London and in the communiqué issued on April 1. So we consider that the Dalai Lama’s visit to Paris should have no impact on the caliber of our relations with China.
Otherwise, no request was made by the Dalai Lama or his representatives, who clearly signaled they would not ask for a meeting with the French government. No such meeting is planned./.