. . .

IRAN/NUCLEAR ISSUE

Q - The agreement between the US and India was reached yesterday and welcomed by the Elysee moreover. In some sectors there seems to be a double standard at work in the international community between the attitudes towards India and towards Iran. What's your reaction?

I refer you to the comments we made several days ago simply pointing out that the situation was different in both legal terms and political terms. Legal terms, given whether the countries concerned subscribe to the non-proliferation treaty or not, and secondly, in political terms, it's a question of the confidence that can be placed in the partners.

As we've said repeatedly, the question, with regard to Iran especially, is one of confidence. The successive reports presented by the IAEA showed that there were a number of elements on which there had not been full disclosure and which as a consequence entail particular vigilance.

With regard to Iran, there was a meeting in Vienna this morning attended by the representatives of the three European Union countries and the EU secretary-general. As you know, this dialogue did not take us forward since the conditions that we repeated were not accepted by the Iranian side.

Q - Is the meeting over?

Yes, just over two hours ago in Vienna, and unfortunately the meeting was not successful since, as I said, our demand, which isn't new and which aimed at the suspension of sensitive activities, was not accepted by the Iranian side. The next step will be the board of governors meeting on Monday.

Q - And the following one is the Security Council? What do you expect there, at least initially?

We're not going to rush things. The next stage, as you say, is the board of governors meeting on Monday. So we'll see how things go on Monday and Tuesday since as you know, the board has a very tight agenda. After that, it's referral to the Security Council, but I think it is premature to talk about the discussions that will be taking place in New York then.

(...)

Q - There are no other talks scheduled with the Iranians between now and Monday?

Not to my knowledge. We set a number of conditions, as I've said, for the dialogue to resume. If the Iranian side came and said it accepted the conditions that were set and were repeated this morning, perhaps things might evolve. But we've no indication to that end at this stage.

Q - Did the Iranians propose today's meeting?

Yes, it was an Iranian initiative to which we responded favorably in order to show we are ready to continue dialogue in a diplomatic framework and in the format of the EU3 representation. We wanted to give a favorable response to the request.

Q - Is it conceivable there could be a deal with India between France and the US to give it satisfaction and obtain its opposition to Iran's projects?

I don't believe one should necessarily make a link between dossiers which are not directly involved. (...)

In the case of India, talks began a long time ago between France and India on one hand and the US and India on the other. Remember there were several stages in this dialogue-for our part we launched a strategic dialogue with the Indians, several years ago now. The nuclear dossier was part of it. So linking the events directly as you do strikes me as a bit exaggerated. Rather, I would remind you that the talks began a long time ago.

In the case of India, as the communique from President Chirac says, it has energy needs which have been fully identified, which means that its need for nuclear energy is quite evident. Also, it provides a response to concerns about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, which is also very important.

India, as you know, has some reservations about the Kyoto Protocol. India is a major consumer of oil and coal. Developing nuclear energy in the country would also have beneficial effects from that point of view.

So the context is very special.

Q - Won't there be negative repercussions on the NPT for example?

We've already discussed this question several times. We are strong supporters of the NPT. What's being done with India doesn't endanger the NPT in any way but is being done in liaison with what we're doing in the context of the NPT. We are also very vigilant as to possible risks of proliferation.

Q - But your problem with the Iranians is a question of principle. They've signed the NPT but aren't complying with it. Yet the Indians haven't signed the NPT but have nuclear weapons, and many countries are competing to get nuclear power plants, Americans and French for that matter. So where's the principle in all this?

When we talk about nuclear cooperation with the Indians, we're talking about civilian nuclear cooperation and we insist on that. That's why the framework agreement we've signed on our side, and that which the Americans have just signed, are agreements in which every word is weighed and which aim precisely to carefully maintain the framework in which this cooperation will be pursued with India. In the case of Iran, the setting is different since it's based on reports presented by the IAEA, which noted as early as 2003 that there were some shortcomings, even violations of the non-proliferation treaty, to which Iran is a party and which meant in this context that it had to be reminded what its obligations were.

Consequently, it is now this follow-up that has started, before the IAEA and shortly probably in the Security Council.

. . .