France MFA: Spokesperson on the Need for a New U.N. Mandate

As of August 2006, Iraq Watch is no longer being updated.
Click here for more information.

WMD profiles

Iraqi entities
of concern

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS SPOKESPERSON

FRENCH MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

July 25, 2003

Excerpts

Q - Until now, you've always said that France would not send troops to Iraq without a UN mandate. Can you tell us precisely what the UN mandate should say for France to approve it?

Mr. de Villepin spoke about this at length yesterday morning with Annette Ardisson on France-Inter. He set out the French view quite clearly.

Q - But he didn't say if it involved sidelining Paul Bremer, for example.

Not at all, that's not the question. There's resolution 1483 of course but it's not enough, and the UN needs to work on defining a clear mandate in Iraq.

Q - When the minister said there can't be any makeshift arrangements between the occupying forces and the UN forces, does that mean that the resolution France is waiting for before it sends troops will require the occupying forces to leave?

No comment.

Q - So could these troops change caps, put on blue helmets and become a peace-keeping force? In resolution 1483 they're described as occupying forces.

Yes, that's correct. Discussions are continuing among capitals and at the UN on the need to clearly define a UN mandate.

Q - Including with Washington?

Discussions with Washington go on all the time.

Q - France is trying to rebuild its relations with the US. Do you think that not providing the military assistance the Americans are asking for is going to slow this process down?

So far as I know, no specific request for assistance has been made. We are in permanent contact, we talk to each other, the ministers are talking to each other, embassies come to the Foreign Ministry and there's been no rejection of any request.

Q - I don't understand whether France wants a new resolution before sending troops or if you don't want to send troops and so there's no need for a new resolution.

Discussions are continuing. I repeat, we want to think about a comprehensive concept for Iraq's reconstruction, at the political, economic, social and security levels. We're thinking about a comprehensive framework.

Q - Does France really want a new resolution?

We will not go into Iraq without a specific UN mandate.

(...)

Q - If there is a resolution, will France send troops to Iraq?

At this stage the question's entirely hypothetical. For the time being, the goal is to define a UN mandate. Everything in due course.

Q - What kind of definition do you want? Can you be more precise about what you'd like to see included in the mandate?

We're still at the stage of ideas. The point is, to quote the minister, to clearly set out the UN mandate, decide on the task it could undertake, and at the same time offer a political perspective and conditions for transparency so that the international community can contribute more actively at the economic and financial levels. On the security front, the aim should be to have a genuine peace force.

That's where we are at this point. Let's see how the UN deliberations evolve. Then we'll be able to see how we can participate.

(...)

Q - Does that mean getting contracts for France for Iraq's reconstruction?

That is not the angle we're working from, that is not in our minds. Our concern is Iraq's future, its reconstruction, formulating a comprehensive framework for reconstruction—on the political, economic, social and security fronts.

(...)

Q - Is tracking down and assassinating the former members of the Iraqi legitimate in your view?

I will quote the minister since he referred to this yesterday.

"Saddam Hussein's sons were the regime's future and their death signals the end of a period, and hopefully, with the capture of Saddam Hussein himself, the page will then be definitively turned."

As you heard the minister say, it is harder to predict the consequences because it's possible some Baathists might seek revenge and possible that resistance to the coalition forces might intensify. As the minister said, for France, the key is to press ahead with the political transition which has to be speeded up. The important thing is for the Iraqis to have the prospect of recovering sovereignty.

(...)

Q - For you, who is the authority, the official interlocutor for Iraq?

For the time being Iraq has a special regime with a coalition present there.

Q - And it's Paul Bremer who's the official interlocutor?

Iraq is operating under UNSCR 1483.

(...)

As of August 2006, Iraq Watch is no longer being updated. Click here for more information.

Search WMD profiles Iraqi entities of concern Iraq's suppliers UN documents Government documents Controlled items Perspectives	STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SPOKESPERSON FRENCH MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS July 25, 2003 *Excerpts* Q - Until now, you've always said that France would not send troops to Iraq without a UN mandate. Can you tell us precisely what the UN mandate should say for France to approve it? Mr. de Villepin spoke about this at length yesterday morning with Annette Ardisson on France-Inter. He set out the French view quite clearly. Q - But he didn't say if it involved sidelining Paul Bremer, for example. Not at all, that's not the question. There's resolution 1483 of course but it's not enough, and the UN needs to work on defining a clear mandate in Iraq. Q - When the minister said there can't be any makeshift arrangements between the occupying forces and the UN forces, does that mean that the resolution France is waiting for before it sends troops will require the occupying forces to leave? No comment. Q - So could these troops change caps, put on blue helmets and become a peace-keeping force? In resolution 1483 they're described as occupying forces. Yes, that's correct. Discussions are continuing among capitals and at the UN on the need to clearly define a UN mandate. Q - Including with Washington? Discussions with Washington go on all the time. Q - France is trying to rebuild its relations with the US. Do you think that not providing the military assistance the Americans are asking for is going to slow this process down? So far as I know, no specific request for assistance has been made. We are in permanent contact, we talk to each other, the ministers are talking to each other, embassies come to the Foreign Ministry and there's been no rejection of any request. Q - I don't understand whether France wants a new resolution before sending troops or if you don't want to send troops and so there's no need for a new resolution. Discussions are continuing. I repeat, we want to think about a comprehensive concept for Iraq's reconstruction, at the political, economic, social and security levels. We're thinking about a comprehensive framework. Q - Does France really want a new resolution? We will not go into Iraq without a specific UN mandate. (...) Q - If there is a resolution, will France send troops to Iraq? At this stage the question's entirely hypothetical. For the time being, the goal is to define a UN mandate. Everything in due course. Q - What kind of definition do you want? Can you be more precise about what you'd like to see included in the mandate? We're still at the stage of ideas. The point is, to quote the minister, to clearly set out the UN mandate, decide on the task it could undertake, and at the same time offer a political perspective and conditions for transparency so that the international community can contribute more actively at the economic and financial levels. On the security front, the aim should be to have a genuine peace force. That's where we are at this point. Let's see how the UN deliberations evolve. Then we'll be able to see how we can participate. (...) Q - Does that mean getting contracts for France for Iraq's reconstruction? That is not the angle we're working from, that is not in our minds. Our concern is Iraq's future, its reconstruction, formulating a comprehensive framework for reconstruction—on the political, economic, social and security fronts. (...) Q - Is tracking down and assassinating the former members of the Iraqi legitimate in your view? I will quote the minister since he referred to this yesterday. "Saddam Hussein's sons were the regime's future and their death signals the end of a period, and hopefully, with the capture of Saddam Hussein himself, the page will then be definitively turned." As you heard the minister say, it is harder to predict the consequences because it's possible some Baathists might seek revenge and possible that resistance to the coalition forces might intensify. As the minister said, for France, the key is to press ahead with the political transition which has to be speeded up. The important thing is for the Iraqis to have the prospect of recovering sovereignty. (...) Q - For you, who is the authority, the official interlocutor for Iraq? For the time being Iraq has a special regime with a coalition present there. Q - And it's Paul Bremer who's the official interlocutor? Iraq is operating under UNSCR 1483. (...)