EMBASSY OF FRANCE IN WASHINGTON
– PRESS & COMMUNICATION SERVICE
Standpoint…
n°201, March 23, 2007
The
following views reflect France’s
official position
…Darfour Message from M. Jacques Chirac, President of the Republic, to the meeting on Darfur held at the Maison de la Mutualité (Paris, 20 March 2007) It is France’s honor and duty to get involved whenever universal values are threatened, whenever the intolerable occurs. (…)
In 2004, France mobilized its military forces to ensure that the refugees would receive aid and protection. It mobilized the European Union. It took action to ensure that the Security Council would sanction those who violate human rights and would refer the matter to the International Criminal Court. It is crucial for those guilty of atrocities to know that there will be no impunity, that the world will hold them responsible for the crimes perpetrated against their own brothers, a crime against humanity.
Africans have committed themselves to peace in Darfur. I hail their efforts and Africa’s determination to fight for human dignity. We must give them our support.
The Security Council decided to deploy a force that would provide that backing, help protect refugees and the respect for human rights, and stabilize the region.
Once again, I call on the Government of Sudan and on all the belligerents to respect the peace agreements, to curb the militias that are sowing terror, and to protect civilian populations.
Today, as the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate, I (...) feel the need for an even more powerful international movement.
We cannot remain silent in the face of one of the great humanitarian tragedies of our time. We cannot forget the lessons of the genocides and crimes against humanity of the 20th century that haunt our consciences. We cannot accept that globalization means borders that are open to everything except for justice and morality.
We must come to the aid of the populations and assume the responsibility for protection that the UN enshrined into international law, at France’s behest. The Sudanese must heed the voice of the international community.
France’s diplomatic effort will remain unflagging, but it will not be satisfied with words alone. Let me say solemnly: If the atrocities continue, if the given word is not respected, the Security Council will have no choice but to adopt sanctions. We are already working on it. And everything must be done to ensure that the UN and the African Union force can be deployed in Darfur. (…)
The fate of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children depends on this. The stability of Africa, a continent that should be able to devote all its strength to development, depends on this! The honor of the international community, which cannot remain inert when the essential is at stake, depends on this.
… Proche-Orient Press briefing given by Foreign Minister spokesperson (Paris, March 23, 2007)
Q - The European Parliament voted by a majority to recognize the Hamas government. How did France react to this request? Does France agree with the Quartet’s reaction?
With regard to your first point, (…) our position is well-known. As soon as the new government was formed, the minister sent a message to his Palestinian counterpart, inviting him to come to France. I believe that we were the first country to send such a message to the new Palestinian government. It was a strong signal of encouragement from the minister.
We are currently in contact with the Palestinian authorities to see when the Palestinian foreign minister could visit--we’d like to see it happen as soon as possible. We are therefore holding talks to see what date could be reserved. So we’re very open in our contacts with the members of the government who do not belong to Hamas. That is our position, and it is, I believe, largely shared by the European Union.
Then there’s the more difficult question of aid. I think it’s worth keeping in mind a figure which is very substantial and which you’ve perhaps seen—it’s a bit paradoxical that in 2006 there was more aid to the Palestinians than in 2005. This is true for the European Union but it’s also true for the entire international community.
In 2006 we provided $1.2 billion in aid to the Palestinians as against only $1 billion in 2005. That’s the reference to keep in mind especially when we’re talking about an embargo on aid to the Palestinians. I really think that one should weigh one’s words and look closely at the real situation. It is true that this aid went through other channels but nonetheless it was far more in 2006 than in 2005.
Next, we have to see now how to move forward. There’s this communiqué from the Quartet which was adopted. It’s a communiqué that notes the measures taken. It welcomes the Mecca agreement, hails the formation of the new government and says that the temporary international mechanism is being extended for three months. It’s a measure we’re taking so as to avoid any interruption in the delivery of aid.
We consider on the French side that the question of direct aid to the Palestinian government has to be asked. We’ve already asked it, and the minister will raise it again at the Gymnich at the end of next week. It’s of course a point on which we’ll be having discussion with our European partners. We know perfectly well that not everyone necessarily has the same approach to this issue. So we’ll have to work to move forward, and that is what the minister will do at the Gymnich in Bremen next week. Then if the European positions evolves, we’ll probably also have to review the Quartet position. (…)
… Iraq Press briefing given by Foreign Minister spokesperson (Paris, March 20, 2007)
Q - The US sees its intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the ‘war on terrorism.’ What is your position in regard to the link established between what is happening in Afghanistan and in Iraq?
First of all, it’s an expression which we’ve never used, the ‘war on terrorism.’ It seems to be too all-encompassing when in reality the situations are very different to each other. You’ll not find the expression ‘war on terrorism’ coming from French leaders.
Obviously we have to fight terrorism--that’s quite clear. But the fight has to be waged by means of the assets which democratic societies have, and the expression ‘war’ does not seem to us the most apt.
As for making a comparison between Afghanistan and Iraq, we’ve already discussed it. There was a major difference at the time these interventions were decided.
In the case of Afghanistan, it’s happening in the context of UN resolutions, with the backing of the Security Council. That’s the reason France from the start made a contribution and continues to maintain a strong presence in Afghanistan. Incidentally, President Karzai was just in Paris.
As regards Iraq, the circumstances in which the US military intervention occurred are well- known, and I won’t go into them. But there is clearly a difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.
