. . .

IRAN

Q - In your view, did the meeting of the six ministers in Berlin yesterday lead to a common view on the various future deadlines in the Iranian question or did each stick with his own proposals?

Yesterday's meeting came the day after the adoption of the Security Council presidential statement which you've seen. So the meeting took place-the EU3 with China, Russia and the United States. That in itself was a demonstration of unity since the six ministers were physically side by side, including at the final press briefing. Ministers reaffirmed their concerns regarding nuclear activities. They stated very clearly that Iran had to comply with the IAEA demands and they considered the presidential statement adopted the day before sent a strong signal to Iran. They also recalled that while they recognized Iran's legitimate right to a civilian nuclear program, there was need for a period to rebuild confidence between Iran and the international community.

Those are the principles which the six agree on. Then, you know the mechanism envisioned. We're going to have a 30-day period at the end of which there'll be an IAEA report which will go to the IAEA board and the Security Council. Then it will eventually be up to the Security Council to make a further pronouncement in a form that remains to be defined-we can't say today what it will be.

Those are the principles on which everyone agrees.

To answer your question, there are clearly nuances in approach, and admittedly it took several days to finalize the presidential statement in New York. In the statements made yesterday, there are also nuances, but what we hope is to make sure that these questions do not prevent the international community from remaining united on this question and sending the clearest possible message to Iran.

That was done with the presidential statement and yesterday's meeting. We'll have to see what comes next. What we want is to see Iran comply within the 30-day-period, as the ministers said yesterday. It's for Iran to choose: either to comply with the demands of the international community or be increasingly isolated in the international community and risk new decisions in the Security Council. The Iranians are faced with a choice.

Q - Do you feel yesterday's meetings served to bring the various positions closer?

I think it's always useful when ministers meet and it was good that they did so the day after the presidential statement in order to consider the next move and what approach should be taken because it's an opportunity to clarify points of view directly, avoiding any misunderstandings that may occur. At this stage, we have this united front, but obviously that doesn't mean answers for all the next ones. I can't tell you at today what the international community will do specifically in 30 days if Iran doesn't comply. We don't know at this point.

There are a number of ideas, there are discussions about them, and as the minister said yesterday we're considering both positive measures to encourage Iran to move forward and negative measures in the event Iran doesn't. But right now we don't know what these measures might be.

Q - Are you sure about the American position, especially in connection with Iraq?

The Americans said they could engage in a dialogue with the Iranians on certain questions linked to Iraq. That's what they've said, and the Iranians reacted. I've nothing to add.

As for the nuclear issue, it's a question on which we're working very closely with the Americans and with the Russians and Chinese. The American position is well-known.

. . .