. . .

IRAN/NUCLEAR ISSUE

Q - Mr. Larijani said this morning that he didn't believe too much in sanctions and that in any case if sanctions are imposed on Iran it would hurt others more than Iran. What does France have to say?

It's not the first time the Iranians have made that kind of statement. At this time we're waiting for Mr. ElBaradei's report. Then, based on the report, there will be consultations among the member countries of the international community.

As has been announced by American sources, we are working to organize a meeting in Paris on May 2 of the political directors of the EU3 plus the United States, Russia and China to review the dossier and consider the subsequent steps in the Security Council.

Then the dossier will go to the Security Council, and we'll see how the various positions are established, bearing in mind that our own position has always been very clear. It was stated by the minister after the meeting in Berlin. The minister said that we had to work on negative measures, in the event Iran did not comply with the IAEA and Security Council demands, and that we also had to consider positive measures in the event Iran did comply with the international demands. In that case we could make it a generous offer for its civil nuclear program.

(...)

Q - Assuming a "no" in response to international demands, that will lead to sanctions?

When the minister says negative measures have to be considered, we're thinking about things of that sort.

Q - Will the UN be at the May 2 meeting?

No, it's to be the same format as the previous meetings, i.e., the EU3, and the three non-European permanent members of the Security Council, and of course you realize we're going to work with all the Security Council members, permanent and nonpermanent.

A form of decision has to be reached in the Security Council that involves all countries. We have been at pains since the start to preserve the unity in the international community. That's why it is very important to work with the Russians, the Chinese and Americans and in due course with the nonpermanent members of the Security Council.

Q - Is one of the ideas being discussed to give Iran a new deadline, to give it more time to comply with what it was asked to do in the Security Council presidential statement?

For the time being we've a Security Council presidential statement. Then we have to consider what the Security Council's next step could be, it might consist of taking up the demands of the international community and asking Iran to comply. Then, I don't know if it'll be thought appropriate or not to have another deadline or what the timeframe might be.

Q - You're referring to a resolution not a statement?

For now we have a presidential statement and one possible suggestion is that we envisage a new position by the Security Council, either in the form of another presidential statement or in the form of a resolution. That will be for the Security Council members to decide.

Q - In the US a few days ago several political leaders, especially members of Congress, asked for Americans to begin a direct dialogue with Iran. Do you think it's possible to envision a new track for dialogue with Iran...?

We don't claim to have the monopoly on dialogue with Iran. A lot of countries in the world engage in dialogue with Iran. It's up to the United States as a sovereign power to decide on the opportuneness of opening a dialogue with Iran and which subjects they wish to discuss. I'll refrain from taking a position on this point, knowing that for our part we have this dialogue.

(...)