Click here for more information.
STATEMENT BY THE SPOKESPERSON
FRENCH MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
January 14, 2003
The countries in the region are doing their best to persuade the Iraqi president to leave for exile. What is France's latest position on this issue?
It has not changed. For us, what matters is Iraq's disarmament.
And exile for the Iraqi president? Do you agree with that position?
It's not one of the issues we're working on. We're working on Iraq's disarmament, so it is an issue on which we have no comment. That's our position.
When Mr. de Villepin speaks of active cooperation on the part of Iraq to avert war, does that means that such cooperation has so far been passive? Are there specific actions on the part of Iraq which might reflect that passivity?
We are guided by the idea that the inspections, to be completely successful, must take place in a logic of collective action and cooperation. Not a passive logic, a logic of cooperation and responsibility. It's essential we mobilize more, that everyone mobilizes more, and Iraq must be the first to do so. It's essential to ensure that the inspection regime is completely effective. The inspections are taking place in satisfactory conditions and, as the minister has said, more must be done.
Has Iraq refused a request from the inspectors?
Certainly not, so far as we know, but we're following the situation closely and waiting each time to hear the inspectors' reports and evaluations. They've briefed the Security Council several times already and will continue doing so; so the effort must be kept up, must be sustained. At this time the inspections are taking place in satisfactory conditions, but it is possible to do still more, to go further.
In the opinion of Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, whom we support, there are gray areas in Iraq's programs, past and present, and ambiguities in Iraqi statements. They must cooperate still more actively and do more to clarify these areas. We want to have certainties.
The fact that France is insisting on active cooperation, does that mean that if the Iraqis were identified as actually being passive, that would encourage us to be less passive alongside some of our allies?
As the minister said, the recourse to force would be a last resort, obviously. We've also said that the status quo in Iraq is not acceptable and that we wanted to see Iraq disarmed. There's no reason to anticipate; there is reason at every stage to ensure that the international community, every state, faces up its responsibilities, including Iraq, in close liaison with UNMOVIC and the AIEA. So we don't put the question in quite the terms you did. At each stage, we're assessing the situation, at each report by Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, the Security Council is involved; that's important because in our view it guarantees that this matter is being guided at the political level according to the rules of international legality, the condition for international legitimacy which guarantees our effectiveness. The requirement that international action be legitimate fully justifies the recourse to the Security Council because there are no other ways. Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei regularly brief the Council on the progress in the work, on the gray areas, on the need for further explanations that they may identify, on everything that is going well and everything that could be better; and we're saying in this context, that we have to work for the complete success of these inspections. They are taking place in satisfactory conditions as I said earlier, but more must be done.
In a statement to an international agency, Mr. Blix, whom you're meeting Friday, expressed concern at the increasingly rapid pace of the US build-up in the Gulf. Is it a matter of concern to France?
No comment.
Are Russia and China on the same wavelength as France in how to deal with the Iraqi problem in the next few weeks?
We share the same objective--Iraq's disarmament. Our analyses coincide, we think the present approach--giving the inspection process every chance so that the mission can be carried out effectively in satisfactory conditions--which the Security Council endorsed, is the best one. That's the approach at this time.
In France 77% and in Germany 80% of public opinion are opposed to their respective countries' intervening in Iraq with the US, according to certain polling institutes... Are France's decisions in this matter based on public opinion in France or on the higher interests of the nation? Does France consider the absence of war in Iraq is in its interest?
Those are two distinct questions.
Regarding the first question, it is addressed to the highest political authorities. Insofar as it's a question that is hypothetical at this time, I must refer you to the said political authorities. Today, as I just said, we're not engaged in a hypothetical recourse to force--that is a last resort--we're working for the success of the mechanism set up under resolution 1441. At this stage, the inspections. We're at this point.
Regarding your second question: I don't think one can answer that question so schematically. One must always take circumstances into account. The picture is not the same, as the French authorities have said before, according to whether we're facing the collective resolve of the UN confronting an unacceptable situation, believing that there is no other recourse than to consider the possible use of force in accordance with resolution 1441; or a different example in which the conditions may not be there. So an answer in the absolute is not possible.
What is certain is that we consider Iraq's disarmament to be in the interest of the international community and if it can be achieved through peaceful means and the inspections regime set up under 1441, it's preferable. That's why we say that war is the last resort. However, there may be cases, as you know, where the last resort turns out to be necessary. So I cannot reply to your question in the absolute.
Everyone has to make an effort, not just Iraq. Do you consider that the US is actively cooperating with the inspectors or passively, and will the US have to send all its military to the region to convince Iraq to go for a peaceful solution eventually? Is that justifiable?
I have no comment on your second point.
Regarding your first point. The minister said the logic for the inspections is collective action. Not passive logic, but a sense of responsibility and action guiding us. That logic can be invoked and put to use in Iraq itself. That is the sense of the minister's letter to the Security Council.
Active cooperation is the cooperation of all, Iraq first and everyone.
The minister asked every country to share with the inspectors any intelligence it may have about Iraqi arms. Have you seen any positive reaction from the Americans since the letter?
I'm not Mr. Blix's spokesman, but he said just this morning that UNMOVIC had received Western intelligence and that thanks to this information UNMOVIC had widened its searches in Iraq. So the reply, according to Mr. Blix, is affirmative.
(...) Is there going to be a time-limit on the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
We believe, as Mr. ElBaradei said yesterday, that the inspections are a way for us to be sure of having the best chance of ascertaining whether Iraq has weapons or not. We want the assurance that Iraq has not acquired weapons of mass destruction. The goal is to verify the existence of such weapons, to destroy them, and that takes time.
How much time? We'll see. We can't say at this point. You must remember that this mission of Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei enables us, as it's been said, to freeze Iraq's entire capacity to advance towards building weapons of mass destruction.
According to them, the practical effect of the inspections is first of all to freeze Iraq's capacity to continue its programs if they exist and then to verify progressively, more specifically, what they are. And that takes time.
What does Iraq have? Everything it has comes from here, from the West, and so you know perfectly well what weapons they have?
Each state comes to this inspection phase with its intelligence. We said that we had useful information which we've supplied to Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei. With that said, they are looking not only for weapons of mass destruction but also for weapons programs, and this concept is fairly broad. Iraq's disarmament presupposes having the complete picture on the situation in Iraq, not just identifying the weapons but also the procedures, the processes and programs that lead to the manufacture of these weapons.