(...)

IRAQ/UNSCR
Q. - You were saying yesterday that we had to see whether, in the current situation, UNSCR 1483 was still pertinent for Iraq. This resolution was adopted at a time when there was no organized guerrilla movement in Iraq. Do you think a new resolution should be sought taking account of the fact that peace hasn't been brought to Iraq and that clashes are continuing?

THE MINISTER - For France, the priority today is certainly to speed up the political process in Iraq. It's very important to give the Iraqi people the possibility of fully restoring their sovereignty over their territory: political and economic sovereignty, and control over their resources This is for us the key factor. Now, we can, of course, see that the security problem is still difficult. A distinction needs to be made between the situation in the different regions, in the North, around Baghdad, in southern Iraq and in the Shiite region. The situation is still complex.
We consider, of course, that the best solution is to entrust the United Nations with full responsibility for the political, economic and security reconstruction operations. That's what we've been saying from the outset. We think that the United Nations must play a central role, since this organization is the best placed, has the strongest credibility and greatest legitimacy to act in a difficult country, which needs the support of all the countries in this process, all the resources of the neighbouring countries, the international community.
So I think it's important for us to be able to discuss the best way of making headway. UNSCR 1483 must be changed. What do our American friends want? Are they ready to move forward to find other solutions? These are questions we must discuss between ourselves to decide on the best way of addressing the Iraqi people's problems, since we can all see that the situation isn't satisfactory.
(...)

IRAQ/WMD

Q. - Has France adopted a position on the lack of evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction? Has France a comment on this, since, at the end of the day, that possible presence was an excuse, a pretext for going to war?

THE MINISTER - To my mind, there's nothing to comment about. You know France's position of principle: to support the peaceful disarmament in Iraq, consequently to support the inspections.

The war took place. Now we have to look to the future, against the background of a difficult situation. All our countries are, quite obviously, very worried. It's important for us to see how we can support the process, support solutions guaranteeing the maintenance of stability and security in Iraq and allowing the Iraqi people and all the region's peoples to find answers to the problems they're facing.

Q. - I'd like to come back on this point. In fact, my colleague wanted to find out whether, by seeking a new resolution, France wasn't defending the establishment of a multinational UN peace force. Is France envisaging this and is she trying to get other countries to support this idea?

(...)

THE MINISTER - I repeat that, to a large extent, the French position on Iraq depends on the views and position of the United States. I know of nothing allowing me to think the Americans have changed their position. France is naturally ready to support, to give her help and shoulder her responsibilities vis-à-vis the Iraqi process, but for us the first prerequisite is recognition of the UN's central role.

Above all, we think it necessary to recognize the UN's essential responsibility in the political, economic and security spheres. If this is done, we can consider and envisage various forms of participation and support for a peace force, but the United Nations must genuinely have the responsibility here. For France it's a matter of principle. We want to be consistent, we didn't support the idea of the war; the time hasn't come to participate in a coalition force. We think that the UN must have total responsibility, we think that, if we want to have genuine legitimacy to act in a country as difficult as Iraq, we need a united international community, which we can obtain only in the UN framework.

TERRORISM/FRANCO-SPANISH COOPERATION

Q. - If the United States clearly recognizes the UN's role in this, would you be ready to be part of a peace force? Also after the support Spain gave to that attack on Iraq, can you tell me what the situation is regarding Franco-Spanish cooperation on combating terrorism?

THE MINISTER - I believe I've already answered the first part of the question. The problem for France isn't whether she's ready to do this or that. We're of course ready to shoulder our responsibilities, but for us what's important is the fulfilment of the requisite conditions, recognition of the principle of the UN's central role.

As regards relations between France and Spain, you know that these are very strong. A fortnight ago, a ministerial seminar was held in Paris bringing together Spanish and French ministers. Cooperation on terrorism is obviously a central point in the cooperation between our two countries. I can tell you that this cooperation is altogether exemplary in the face of all the challenges facing us: the two countries' ability to join forces in the battle is considerable and is something both countries have reason to be proud of.

INTELLIGENCE SERVICES/IRAQ WAR/WMD/UNSCR/US

Q. - I'd like to know what you think about the war of words we're witnessing in both the United States and Britain on possible intelligence service errors leading to a report which justified - or purportedly justified - the war in Iraq.
Do you think, as Tony Blair has said, that history will forgive the intelligence services' mistakes?
Do you think that the modification to UNSCR 1483 could amount to ending the considerable power Washington has today over Iraq?

THE MINISTER - On the first question, I don't want to start a war of words. Let me tell you very clearly what France's position was throughout that period. Obviously, a lot of information circulated at the beginning of the year, but France's position was always the same.

We gave the inspectors all the information we had. France took over the Security Council presidency in January and I personally wrote to all the Council members asking them to send to Messrs Hans Blix and ElBaradei any intelligence in their possession in order to get the inspectors to check it.

That was the French position. We've always said in Iraq that the inspectors were the eyes and hands of the Security Council, the international community. They were the ones who could really get the information and check it. It's always difficult to know, be absolutely sure that intelligence is correct. The inspectors were the best placed since they were on the spot.

That's always been our position. You can reread all the statements we made at the Security Council and our public statements and you'll see that was always France's position.

We've always thought we needed to base our action on the wisdom, knowledge and experience of those on the ground. This is why, at the time of the discussion on the drafting of UNSCR 1441, we asked to hear, before any decision was taken at the Council, from the inspectors themselves, the information, technical facts, all the intelligence on the ground which we needed.
This was very important for us in order to avoid this sort of war of words on intelligence reports which are very difficult to verify.

ANTI-WAR FRONT

Q. - There was a lot of talk of shared opinions on the Iraq crisis. You have very similar views. Why couldn't there have been be a sort of joint action with all the countries opposed to the war, a common strategy or even a common declaration, a joint initiative?

THE MINISTER - All our countries must try to provide the international community and all those on the ground with constructive support, useful solutions. The aim isn't to complicate things. This is why our position isn't to take a united stand with the countries opposed to the war; we share the families' suffering, the suffering of all the Americans and all the Britons who have soldiers on the ground and, sadly, have had so many deaths and injuries.

This is why our position is to support a dialogue designed to find positive solutions. The one we're engaged in at the moment will provide input into our current thinking as well as into the discussions in the Security Council. However, we have to take account of the current position of those in the coalition force. So we have to talk, firmly but in a spirit of true friendship, to our American and British friends who today find themselves in difficulty on the ground.

(...)
WTO/AGRICULTURE/CANCUN/EU/MEXICO

Q. - First, I'd like to know whether you talked about the issue of farm subsidies in the run up to the WTO ministerial meeting which will be held in Cancún. (...)

THE MINISTER - I completely share the view of my friend Luis Ernesto Derbez. We naturally want the Cancún meeting to be a success, it's very important for everyone, but I'd also like to make it clear, in response to the criticisms made everywhere against Europe, that it isn't the fortress some people take delight in describing.

Europe imports more agri-foodstuffs from the developing countries than the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand put together: so it's an area open to agricultural imports. Moreover, Europe has made a lot of efforts over the past few years and has undergone some very significant changes: first of all Agenda 2000 which provides inter alia for substantial cuts in intervention prices; then the stabilization of the twenty-five member Europe's agricultural budget until 2013, a decision also taken in Copenhagen; and, finally, the Luxembourg agreement of June this year under the terms of which we agreed new ways of managing subsidies to bring them into line with the WTO criteria.

Thanks to all this, I believe we have made significant progress towards making a success of Cancún and, I repeat, we sincerely want this and are going to support the efforts all the countries are making./.