PRESS CONFERENCE BY FOREIGN MINISTER OF FRANCE

PRESS CONFERENCE BY FOREIGN MINISTER OF FRANCE

At a Headquarters press conference this afternoon, the Foreign Minister of France, Dominique de Villepin, outlined his country's initiative for the return of United Nations inspectors to Iraq according to a definite timetable and added that, if inspectors were refused, the Security Council should take measures without excluding any option. 

France advocated a two-step approach based on legitimacy and effectiveness, Mr. de Villepin said.  First, United Nations inspectors must return to Iraq without obstacle, delay or conditions.  A precise timetable could be set.  Following that period, the situation would have to be assessed.  Inspectors would have to be able to operate freely in Iraq, carrying out their work to eliminate all possible weapons of mass destruction, which would then make possible the end of sanctions.  If that did not take place, different options would need to be looked at within the framework of the Security Council.  France did not exclude any option.

France's position regarding the situation in Iraq was based on three imperatives, including responsibility, collegiality and legitimacy, he said.

More than ever, it was important to defend the United Nations system by deepening cooperation not only among States and regional organizations, but also among financial institutions, he added.  Multilateral instruments to fight the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction must also be strengthened.  The President of France had proposed holding a meeting of the Security Council in

2003 to examine non-proliferation policy. 

He said France also wanted to continue the process of United Nations reform, in particular the expansion of the Security Council to include new members -- permanent and non-permanent -- and wanted to meet the aspirations of countries such as Germany, Japan and India.  The French President had also put forward the idea of an "Economic and Social Security Council" and had advocated the establishment of a worldwide environmental organization. 

The actions of the international community must have undeniable legitimacy, he said.  Without legitimacy, there was the risk of increased instability.  The Security Council had a preeminent role in that regard.  The Council's decisions must be applied, because it was the only authority entitled to authorize the use of force, except in the case of legitimate defence.  The major principles of French diplomacy applied, in particular, to the case of Iraq, which was, once again, at the centre of the international community's concern. 

Iraq's attitude was unacceptable, he said.  Iraq defied the authority of the Security Council and raised the threat of the new proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  Iraq was, therefore, a threat to the security not only of the region and the international community, but also of its people, who were suffering greatly.  The status quo was unacceptable, intolerable and necessitated action. 

"The choice, however, is not between action or inaction, but rather knowing how to act", Mr. de Villepin said.  In that regard, it was important not to act in a way that added to instability or in a way that risked the creation of new

sources of frustration and imbalances.  "We have to act legitimately, collectively and responsibly", he added.

Poorly prepared action would not resolve the problem, he said.  Rather, it could destabilize neighboring countries, alienate regional public opinion, worsen the Middle East situation and prevent the effectiveness of the international coalition against Al Qaeda.  

In his statement to the General Assembly this morning, the President of the United States had stressed the central role of the United Nations, Mr. de Villepin said.  That was a good thing.  It also showed that there was a great temptation in the United States towards unilateral action.  President Bush's speech was fully compatible with the French approach, including the determination to fight proliferation, the need for a collective framework -- that of the Security Council -- and that priority be given to the return of inspectors to Iraq. 

Tomorrow, the Permanent Members of the Council would meet at a luncheon with United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, he noted.  At that time, he would present the French point of view.  Dialogue with partners both in the Security Council and in the region was important.  The European Union had already started that process.  The objective was effectiveness, he said.

"Our decisions must be above and beyond reproach", he said.  That was the condition for success.  It was important for the international community to prepare itself, to mobilize and to reach consensus on the return of United Nations inspectors to the region, before having to examine other options. 

Action must, however, be adapted to a new international situation, he added.  The world was complex.  While it was marked by cultural differences it was also interdependent.  The world was not suffering from too much power but from a sense of vulnerability.  To face such vulnerability, the international community had to mobilize effectively.

Was there any circumstance in which France would give up its two-stage approach? a correspondent asked.  He responded that in the talks he had had on the French proposal, it was clear that, with a majority of European Union countries and a large number of Arab countries, a broad consensus was emerging.  It was important to understand the need to maintain consistency.  That was why France was insisting on two stages:  to set the objective of a return of the inspectors; and to do so collectively.  The entire international community should support that objective.  Consensus would exert strong pressure on Iraq.  It was important for the international community to show cohesion. 

Would France take part in military action against Iraq if the United Nations sanctioned it? a correspondent asked.  The international community was gathered around a clear-cut message to combat proliferation and to encourage the return of inspectors, Mr. de Villepin said.  It was important not to "jump the gun" on the new phase.  President Bush had said this morning before the General Assembly that it was the role and responsibility of the United Nations.  The Secretary-General had said the same thing.  It was in that framework that a solution should be sought.  If the return of the inspectors was not possible, then other options would have to be examined.

Asked whether he was focused only on the practical machinery of the return of the inspectors, Mr. Villepin said the priority was combating the risk of proliferation.  In that context, France's priority was the return of inspectors.  That did not mean that other factors should be neglected.  While it was important

to make progress on other points, the major criterion was the return of inspectors.

Would Mr. de Villepin be introducing the concept of a three-week deadline to the other Security Council members? a correspondent asked.  Mr. de Villepin said he would be discussing the issue tomorrow with the Secretary-General and the other Council members.  To be effective, it was important to set a timetable.  The French concern, he repeated, was legitimacy and effectiveness.

In response to a question on Germany's position on Iraq, Mr. de Villepin said he believed that Germany shared a common view on the need to combat the risk of proliferation and the need to show determination regarding the return of inspectors.  Germany had taken a clear-cut stand on military intervention.  It was not up to him to comment on that position.

Asked to comment on regime change in Iraq, Mr. de Villepin said that France did not have any sympathy for the Iraqi regime.  He disapproved of the attitude of the Iraqi regime vis-à-vis the Iraqi people, who continued to pay dearly for the actions of Saddam Hussein.  But, the objective of the return of inspectors and the risk of proliferation must be made clear.

Would France be willing to authorize the use of force if needed? a correspondent asked.  He said he did not wish to anticipate what France would do in such a situation.  France would look at all options within the framework of the Security Council, at that time. 

What was the United States response to President Chirac's plan and what would France like to see regarding a time frame for Security Council consideration of the first step? a correspondent asked.  Mr. de Villepin said that he had not had the opportunity to get into a specific timetable or methodology with the United States Secretary of State.  They had already agreed however, on a central point, which was the role of the United Nations and the Security Council.  Regarding a timetable, President Chirac had spoke of three weeks, which would make it possible to clearly establish the need for the return of inspectors.  President Bush had not mentioned a timetable this morning.  France would raise the possibility in the next few days with its partners.

Asked to comment on the situation in the Middle East, Mr. de Villepin said that France was concerned about the situation in the Middle East.  France's concern increased with the growing instability in the region.  Security Council resolutions must be implemented everywhere.  There should not be two yardsticks. France had advocated an international conference, which allowed for the creation of a timetable and the coming together of the different parties, in order to go forward with the creation of a Palestinian State.  That was the only solution for peace in the region.

A correspondent said that there was the perception in the Arab world that France at first opposed the idea of military action, but eventually went along with the idea.  Had that become France's official position?  Mr. de Villepin said the position he had expressed was the official position of France.  France could not agree to violations of Security Council resolutions.  It was important that the international community come together to cope with the threat.

Responding to a question on the effectiveness of inspectors, Mr. de Villepin said that the reports on the work of the inspectors between 1991 and 1998 showed that their work could be effective.  Inspectors must be able to work freely, however.  The risk of proliferation must be finally eliminated.