[Please note that only the original French text issued by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs may be considered official.]

. . .

Q: Iran announced it has installed a new cascade of centrifuges. For France, does this make the prospect of a negotiated solution on the Iranian crisis a bit more complicated?

A: With regard to the specific point you raise, I want to remind you that the Security Council asked Iran, in SCR 1696, to suspend its enrichment activities. So this is certainly an obligation for Iran. Although Iran claims to want a negotiated solution, it is currently doubling its enrichment capacities. This naturally increases the concerns of the international community about the development of Iran's capacities to produce fissile material.

It is a further signal which, in our view, is obviously a negative signal. We must take this on board in evaluating the dossier. At the same time it doesn't come as any great surprise since, as you know, the IAEA handed in a report on August 31 in which it already discussed the development of new capacities on the Iranian side. It's not a surprise but, as I said it, is a negative signal in our view which we will have to take into account in coming days.

Q: But the door to negotiations is always open?

A: Yes, the door to negotiations is always open, obviously. At the same time, as you know, the priority now is to move towards a resolution in the UN Security Council. The three Europeans have proposed a draft resolution. As you know, we had contacts on this with the Russians, Americans and Chinese. These contacts are continuing with a view to adopting measures under Article 41 of the Charter.

So that's the whole purpose of the current discussions in New York. Of course, as you say, we're keeping the door open to dialogue if Iran decided to return to dialogue and the negotiating table. We have said all along that the measures that we're going to adopt in New York will be reversible if Iran decides on a different line of conduct. But we've no indication that that's the case at this time, on the contrary.

Q: But the Russians don't agree with the European draft.

A: They've only just got the draft, and discussions are beginning. There was an initial meeting of the Six in New York yesterday. It was an initial, fairly general exchange on the draft resolution prepared by the Europeans. The discussions will continue at the beginning of next week. We consider on our side that the measures proposed in the European draft constitute a suitable, proportionate and reversible response to Iran's decision not to comply with the IAEA and Security Council demands.

As you know, the measure we've proposed are targeted to Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, and to individuals and entities contributing to these programs. It seems to us, from a European standpoint, that the draft accurately reflects the spirit of the discussions that we had had earlier, particularly the ministerial talks in London on October 6. But at the same time it is normal that the Russians, Chinese and Americans should have a point of view to express, and possibly amendments to the European draft to propose. It will be of course be discussed next week. But we believe our draft already takes their concerns on board and we hope an agreement can be reached on the text.

Q: But do you still think it is possible to get a draft resolution next week, particularly given the Bushehr reactor issue?

A: We'll see. As we've said before, the draft provides an exception for Bushehr. I believe that it largely takes into account the concerns of the Russians. We've both seen the American statements about this, allowing us to glimpse the possibility of an agreement on the Bushehr question. That's all I can say on the specific point. As for the rest, discussions are continuing. We prefer not to make any announcements in terms of a timetable.

Q: But the Russians agreed with SCR 1696 so why are they raising difficulties now?

A: It's a question to ask them. If I understand correctly, there are questions on the Russian side about the perimeter of the measures envisaged.

Q: Last week I got the impression everyone was in agreement, that there was just a question of detail on the text of the resolution. Where do things stand today? There's a sense we're wasting time.

A: What we said is that there was an agreement to move forward to another stage. No one questions the fact that we now have to work on a new resolution. I don't believe that is in question as such. Now, there's the content of the resolution, which is necessarily a bit complicated. You've seen the draft, specifically the measures it contains, about material, people, financial assets. This is inevitability a bit complex because it involves lists of individuals and entities, which need to be fine-tuned. It's a fairly technical draft and so quite difficult to negotiate, but we hope an agreement can be achieved.

. . .