…Lebanon
- Press briefing given by Foreign Ministry spokesperson, January 25, 2008
France condemns in the strongest possible terms the new attack committed this morning in Beirut, in which an officer of the Internal Security Forces was killed and which left many dead and wounded.
After the Parliament and the army, another institution important to Lebanon’s stability and to the security of the Lebanese people has been targeted, in the person of a high official of the Internal Security Forces. France denounces these repeated, lethal attempts to destabilize Lebanon and calls on the international community to put an end to them.
France extends its condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims and expresses its solidarity in this time of sorrow to the Lebanese people, its government and its security forces, which were affected by this latest attack. More than ever, France stands by the side of the Lebanese people.
This terrorist act must be thoroughly investigated and its authors and sponsors must be brought to justice.
We reiterate our call to all the parties, within Lebanon and outside the country, to assume their responsibilities without delay and to do everything they can to put an end to the dangerous vacuum at the head of the Lebanese state. Everything must be done in this regard, in the spirit of the ideas contained in the plan adopted unanimously in Cairo by the foreign ministers of the Arab League countries.
France reaffirms its determination to play a full role in the efforts made, with the international community’s support, to strengthen solidarity, stability and unity in Lebanon.
Q: You said that France calls on the international community to put an end to the repeated, lethal attempts to destabilize Lebanon. But who is the international community? Isn’t it france which in a way is protecting Lebanon?
The international community is everyone, including France. This is not the first time we’ve called on the international community to support the current efforts. It’s why we’re supporting the plan proposed by the Arab League. We wish to reaffirm this in the wake of this new attack which we strongly condemn.
Q : According to France and the international community, the solution in Lebanon is political and therefore it’s up to the Lebanese to find a solution among themselves. France is serving as facilitator—other countries are involved in the same kind of role—and this week there were contacts in Paris on Lebanon. Can you tell us if, in the contacts you had this week with Qatar, the Israelis, and also the Lebanese parties, the issue now is to reconsider the consensus for Michel Suleiman to be president of Lebanon?
The minister did indeed meet this week with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar. The minister reaffirmed with the latter their support for the Arab League plan and the League’s efforts, particularly the secretary-general’s. We’re now letting the Arab League and the Lebanese pursue their discussions. Let’s wait for Sunday’s meeting of Arab League foreign ministers. We also have the February 11 deadline. Let’s let the talks to continue. It’s not our place to interfere in the choice the Lebanese make. We’re there to facilitate the dialogue when it’s helpful. Naturally, we discuss this question, which means a lot to us—you know how closely France is involved—whenever we can. It will also be a topic of discussion at the meeting of the 27 foreign ministers at the general affairs/external relations council meeting in Brussels. We hope that we’re finally going to reach a solution for a consensus candidate.
Q: Did Mr. Kouchner discuss Lebanon, Shebaa Farms and the border issues with the Israeli minister?
The main focus of the discussions was the peace process and the Gaza situation.
Q: A phrase caught my attention in an interview the minister gave to the press on lebanon. speaking of syria, he said it should stop its “its destabilizing maneuvers in lebanon.” is this a new step in france’s attitude, a further pressure? have you gone up a notch in the tension which visibly exists between the two countries over lebanon?
We are maintaining constant pressure on all parties that have a role to play in the situation in Lebanon, and we call on them to do everything so as not to hinder, not to block the current process. There are no new elements in this. As you know, we’ve ended political contacts with Syria. The minister expressed his disappointment since we were hoping for rapid, tangible results on the ground. So we’re continuing to maintain the pressure as much as we can on those who can help the presidential election process in Lebanon move forward, and as quickly as possible. As we say in this morning’s communiqué, we think that the void at the head of the Lebanese state is dangerous and that agreement should be reached on the election of a consensus president as quickly as possible.
…Middle East
-Press briefing given by Foreign Ministry spokesperson, January 22, 2008
Q: Do you think it’s the right time to invite the Israeli defense minister with what’s going on in Gaza? Don’t you think it’s a provocation for the Arabs and for the Palestinians especially?
I don’t think so at all. The trip was scheduled some time ago and will be an opportunity for Mr. Kouchner to discuss all subjects, particularly the situation in Gaza, with Mr. Barak. I think it’s appropriate to take every opportunity that comes up to convey to the Israelis such messages as we did yesterday at the press briefing. I believe that it is in our interest at this time to talk with the Israelis and with all the parties concerned. (…)
Q: Can you outline the French position?
The French position is exactly what we said yesterday in the Foreign Ministry communiqué. We emphasized our very deep concern at the deterioration in the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We asked for the opening of crossings, improvement in fuel oil deliveries, the power supply in Gaza—we’re also beginning to be heeded since I understand that this morning Israel made a gesture on those lines. We call lastly for an end to all forms of violence and an end to rocket fire. As we said yesterday, we think it is urgent the situation Gaza be improved. That’s what the Security Council will say.
Q: There’s talk now of occupied territories. Do you consider Gaza to be an occupied territory?
We consider that it’s essential for the violence to stop—it matters little about the words. We all know what the occupied territories are. The territories as a whole must revert to a normal situation, a situation of calm. There has to be free movement. All violence has to end. The civilian population must not be affected as it is today by measures such as the blockade. Behind these words, what we’re hoping, is the removal of obstacles to the delivery of humanitarian assistance, for the region to recover peace and stability. That’s the whole purpose of the process which was set in motion in Annapolis and strengthened in Paris. (…)
- Press briefing given by Foreign Ministry spokesperson, January 25, 2008
Q: The situation in the Mideast is deteriorating, especially in Gaza and Lebanon. Is this forcing France to review its policy? American policy isn’t working. Might France take the initiative to think about and review its policy in the Middle East?
There was the Annapolis conference which started the momentum; there was the Paris conference which was hugely successful since the total amount now stands at $7.7 billion. We’re doing everything we can to improve the situation in the territories, and especially in Gaza. It’s a priority in our policy. The Israeli prime minister is meeting President Abbas on Sunday, and this shows clearly the political will is still there on both sides to build on this momentum. Like you, I can see the situation in Gaza is extremely troubling. The minister discussed it with Mr. Barak and spoke about it at the meeting Tuesday evening with the Quartet representative, Mr. Blair, Ms Ferrero-Waldner, who represented the Commission, and Norwegian Foreign Minister Stoere. Pierre Duquesne, who is responsible for following up of the donors’ conference, has been to the Middle East. We’re talking to all the parties and we’re continuing what was done at the Paris conference to improve the situation on the ground, to help the free movement of goods and people. That remains our objective, and it’s a priority for us, for France and particularly for Bernard Kouchner.
Q: In spite of France’s pressing demands about Gaza and the humanitarian situation, Mr. Barak still sounds very combative in his responses. (…) Aside from calls to Israel and diplomatic pressure, is there a policy that could be adopted to change Israel’s position on these issues?
That’s what we did when we met with Mr. Barak. We’re discussing matters with the Israelis--not only France, all countries concerned. Everyone is aware of the seriousness of the situation in Gaza, everyone wants things to improve and is trying to ensure that humanitarian aid can get through to reach the people—which is the case but it’s still far too little as we well realize. We want to help the people.
Everyone is aware of the situation, including the Israelis. We talked about the Gaza situation with Mr. Barak. It is essential to improve the situation of the people in Gaza. But Mr. Barak recalled the need to think of Israel’s security as well, and as you know that’s also one of the concerns of the international community.
As I’ve said frequently this week, and the minister himself has said, we stand ready to support the Egyptian authorities in dealing with the situation created at the border between Gaza and Egypt. We’ve called on Israel to lift the blockade of the Gaza Strip so as to allow emergency aid and basic products to go through.
At the same time, we’ve also repeated that we want to see an end to all forms of violence, and also an end to rocket fire; we fully understand Israel’s concern with respect to its security. As everyone agreed at the Paris Conference in December, peace will not be achieved without Gaza which is an integral part of the future Palestinian state.
Q: The Palestinian prime minister called on Europe and the US to shoulder their responsibilities in regard to the situation in Gaza. He said the blockade was a failure. Does France share this analysis?
We’ve asked for an end to the blockade and to any unilateral measure of this kind that affects the civilian population, already suffering serious hardship.
Q: But Mr. Barak doesn’t share this view?
Mr. Barak is aware of the difficulty of the situation but he is also very attached to Israel’s security which is also a key element for reaching peace and stability in the region.
…Iran
- Press briefing given by Foreign Ministry spokesperson, January 22, 2008
Q: Is France still counting on reaching an agreement, a draft, with its partners in Germany and could you tell us what’s in the draft?
We’re hoping to see progress on the draft resolution. I proposed waiting till the end of today’s meeting. You’ll have far more pertinent information after this meeting. But my answer to your question is positive: since New York and the Statement on September 28, 2007, talks have continued between the E3+3, and today’s meeting of the six ministers will, we hope, lead to a text on new sanctions. We’re acting in line with resolutions 1737 and 1747.
(…)
Q: And it’s tomorrow that the UN will take measures?
If an agreement is reached today, the text will be forwarded to the Security Council. It will then follow the usual procedure. A resolution is rarely adopted in one day at the United Nations.
Q: What are the Russian and Chinese positions at this point?
We hope that today’s talks will show that an agreement can be reached with the Russians and Chinese. It’s not a mystery, you know. They voiced certain reservations. It is precisely for that reason we continued the discussions and that today there’s a meeting. Let’s wait for the end of the meeting to see if it produces what we hope, i.e. a third draft sanctions resolution.
- Press briefing given by Foreign Ministry spokesperson, January 25, 2008
Q: What is the status of the new resolution on Iran? Insofar as the question of Israel’s security was evoked with Ehud Barak, did he talk about or discuss the Iranian problem as Ms. Livni did in Davos?
We didn’t discuss the Iranian issue in detail with Mr. Barak.
Q: And what about the resolution?
The E3+3 meeting in Berlin ended on a very positive note as the Six reached an agreement to bring a draft resolution to the UN. However, you will understand that I can’t go into it in detail as discussions are under way in New York. The idea was presented to Security Council members and a text is being drafted.
So the work is under way at the UN, on a priority basis, and we hope the Security Council will adopt a resolution very soon.
Q: Are you talking about weeks, months or days?
I can’t give you an exact timetable because it depends when the text is finalized and on the evolution of discussions in New York. Currently, we’re working on and finalizing the draft resolution. Naturally, as with all such drafts, there are discussions. Some resolutions are adopted very quickly, others less so. So I’m incapable of telling you at this point how many days, or perhaps weeks, it will take to adopt this resolution. Obviously we hope it will be soon.
Q: The problem is that there are different assessments of the Berlin E3+3 on Iran. The Russians have a different explanation from the British and the Germans. What is your assessment of this agreement? Would you say it contains new sanctions? The Russians say there will be no new sanctions and that it’s therefore not binding, while others say there will be new sanctions. I can’t make heads or tails of it! What is going on, exactly?
The Six have agreed that there will be new sanctions, but I can’t go into detail, and I won’t be able to until the resolution is adopted. During Mr. Kouchner’s press briefing following his meeting with Mr. Barak, he said, “Real progress has been made. Without revealing the content of the draft resolution that must first be discussed at the UN Security Council (as I just said), you will see that there are both new and specific sanctions and also the encouragement of dialogue.” So as you can see, our approach remains that of combining dialogue and firmness, and the Six have agreed to include new sanctions in a Security Council resolution.
Q: So you’re talking about new sanctions and not the extension of already existing ones?
When I say “new sanctions,” I mean “new sanctions.” That means there will be more than what already exist. In any case, let’s allow the talks to move forward. It’s not standard practice to give reporters scoops on Security Council resolutions.
Q: With respect to the new draft, do you share the minister’s view that it’s something minimal?
I haven’t heard that. Let me read you what he said: “New and specific sanctions and also an encouragement of dialogue. Frankly, I think this represents obvious progress.” The minister was very clear. He was satisfied with the meeting of the Six.
As you know, some countries had reservations. When these types of discussions get underway, we cannot know the outcome, and the fact that there was a result, with an agreement by the Six, is really positive. Let’s look at the positive aspects of this type of exercise rather than always trying to see its limitations. Let’s measure the progress that’s being made and try to move forward together.
Q: One of the aspects a diplomatic source commented on, not necessarily in Paris, was that the agreement was reached by diluting part of the text on which there was no agreement. The Russians wanted to withdraw the reference to arms sales and the Chinese don’t want to mention certain transactions. Did that influence the fact that there is now a text?
In any diplomatic negotiations of this kind, you have extreme positions that have to be reconciled. Some want to go as far as possible, others to do as little as possible. When an agreement is reached, it rarely goes along with the most extreme positions. The important thing is for there to be a draft agreement on sanctions because that sends a message of firmness to Iran. That’s what we wanted. If we hadn’t agreed to work on a sanctions resolution in the Security Council, we wouldn’t have been able to send a message of firmness. We are taking the exact approach we wanted, combining dialogue and firmness. We have been making proposals to the Iranians for a long time. The Iranians have rejected our proposal to hold a dialogue. This agreement shows that our determination, the firmness of our approach and the unity of the international community remain intact.
…Democratic Republic of the Congo
Communiqué issued by the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, January 24, 2008
“France is pleased at the success of the Goma conference on peace, security and development in the Kivus, and welcomes the signing by the Congolese government and armed groups of ‘acts of commitment’ which mark a new and decisive stage for the re-establishment of a lasting peace in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
“It congratulates President Kabila, the Congolese authorities and the organizers and all the actors in the conference whose mobilization and spirit of dialogue and consensus made it possible to achieve this success.
“France encourages all the parties involved to implement the commitments that were made as quickly as possible. In close consultation with its partners in the international community, it will continue to support the Congolese authorities efforts to this end. The foreign and European affairs minister will reaffirm this during his visit to the DRC on January 25 and 26.
“France invites all the countries neighboring the DRC to join fully in the implementation of these agreements.”
…Afghanistan/Death Sentence
Press briefing given by Foreign Ministry spokesperson, January 23, 2008
France is shocked at the announcement of the decision by the first court of Mazar-i Sharif to impose a death sentence on an Afghan journalist, Parwez Kaambakhsh, for writing an article about Islam and women’s rights.
It recalls its total opposition to the death sentence.
It emphasizes that freedom of expression must be guaranteed in compliance with the principles and values enshrined in the Afghan Constitution.
…Guantanamo Bay
Press briefing given by Foreign Ministry spokesperson, January 23, 2008
Q: Omar Khadr, a young Canadian, is to be tried as an adult on February 4 by the military commission of Guantanamo. Does France, which has taken the lead in fighting the scourge of child-soldiers, consider a boy who was enrolled when he was 11 and arrested at 15 (in Afghanistan in 2002) consider he is a child-soldier who may not be tried before a special military court?
France fully subscribes to the Paris commitments defined at the conference, let’s Free the Children of War,” organized in conjunction with UNICEF in February 2007.
We consider any child involved in an armed conflict to be a victim and must be considered as such. As a minor at the time of the actions he’s charged with, Mr. Khadr must therefore be extended special treatment, a point on which there exists a global consensus.
…Colombia/Venezuela/FARC
- Press briefing given by Foreign Ministry spokesperson, January 23, 2008
Q: Colombian President Alvaro Uribe said Tuesday he didn’t rule out the presence of an “international force” in the meeting area he supports on condition there’s a swap of hostages for guerillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). “That would be possible,” he said. What’s your reaction?
It’s an idea that deserves to be studied in the context of everything that may facilitate a humanitarian solution which we earnestly wish to see.
Q: Are you satisfied with the results of yesterday’s meeting between a French representative and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in Caracas on the next steps to obtain a humanitarian exchange of hostages for guerrillas in Colombia? Did the meeting produce definite progress?
The meeting was very useful given the important role played by President Chavez in the matter of the hostages held by the FARC.
|
