[Please note that only the original French text issued by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs may be considered official.]
. . .
Q - About Iran. Is there any possibility of the European Union going beyond the sanctions already proposed by the UN?
A - Ministers [at the EU general affairs/external relations council on January 22] will be discussing the transposition of resolution 1737 by the EU so it can be implemented in Europe. As you know, a number of decisions at the European level are needed to implement SCR 1737. The French position is that we must implement all of SCR 1737, nothing but 1737.
Q - Is there a question of interpretation in understanding exactly what the resolution means, is it that?
A - There may in fact be some slight problems on the sidelines, specifically in knowing exactly which entities are targeted. It's more technical problems and on the sidelines, but our position on the political level is that we should implement this resolution which was unanimously adopted by the Security Council. That's the priority. We're not considering going beyond 1737 among Europeans.
Q - The resolution was adopted on December 23. When does it have to be applied?
A - I don't know if the resolution itself stipulates a date. (…) When you're freezing the financial holdings of certain entities and preparing lists of goods for a ban on exports or transit, it inevitably takes time. We're in this process and moreover I'm not sure that we'll be completely in position on Monday, as far as the EU is concerned, to actually decide on the transposition measures. I believe it's planned for February, but it is all well under way.
Q - I don't understand. The decision gives Iran 60 days to comply, and you've not even begun to implement it
A - We're giving Iran 60 days to return to the negotiating table and suspend enrichment activities and at that point, in effect, the countries in the international community could go back to the sanctions they've agreed on.
What's important is that we've begun the transposition. Iran could, depending on the report the IAEA director-general submits, send us a positive signal and see to it that we're not obliged to go forward in implementing these measures.
Q - And after 60 days, what's going to happen?
A - After 60 days, what's planned is a report from Mr. ElBaradei. When he met the minister yesterday, he confirmed that he would be presenting the report. After that, the Security Council will have to take a decision in one direction or the other.
Q - By deciding to prolong the measures?
A - No, there'll be no extension of the measures. The measures have been taken and there's no going back on them unless Iran changes its attitude.
Q - When you say that in 60 days, you will go in one direction or the other, does that mean the sanctions will not be prolonged or that you will go further?
A - Either Iran sends positive signals, agrees to suspend its enrichment activities, and at that moment we'll suspend the application of the sanctions. Or Iran doesn't send positive signals, and in fact it is conceivable we'll consider new measures, but there's nothing automatic about it. Of course there will have to be discussions among the Security Council members to decide on new measures.
Q - Apparently, Société Générale has canceled a billion-dollar contract with Iran. Was that under 1737?
A - I'm not aware of it. These are decisions taken by commercial banks and they're made on the basis of their own considerations. In any case, it's not a response to some instruction from the French authorities.
Q - So it's independent?
A - Yes, these are decisions taken by banks depending on their own assessment of things.
Q - It involved an oilfield.
A - It doesn't matter. There's no general instruction from the French authorities about it.
(…)
Q - Iran has said it's open to meeting with a French envoy, without defining his identity. I'd like to know first whether you've any comment on the Iranian attitude? And is there anything new in regard to sending an envoy?
A - I'll begin with your second point. No, there's no new information I can give you today about possibly sending an envoy, nor about the decision in principle nor the identity of the envoy nor the date of an eventual visit to Tehran. In addition, with regard to the Iranian statements, we've noted them and as sending the envoy would be consistent with a wish to engage in dialogue with the Iranians, we've noted the Iranian willingness to meet with an envoy.
Q - Why is it taking so long to reach a decision about sending an envoy to Tehran….?
A - First of all, discussions like this take place confidentially and discreetly as you've seen over the past few days. We're taking into account various elements, and based on these the political authorities will consider if the principle of a visit is confirmed and when it might take place.
I understand all the questions that this raises, but don't forget that we've already had a dialogue with Iran. We have an ambassador in Iran, may I remind you. The minister met Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki in Beirut last August. He saw him again in New York in September. As Mr. Douste-Blazy said yesterday morning on the radio, I believe, a visit by him is not imminent. What we're talking about is sending an envoy other than the minister, clearly, but this is in the context of a dialogue which is not something exceptional vis-Ã -vis Iran.
(…)
Q - There's no possibility being considered for tougher economic sanctions, I gather?
A - What we've said all along is that we are in favor of progressive and reversible sanctions, as the Security Council said itself in its resolution. Initial measures have been taken, and this does not preclude other measures being taken if Iran does not comply with the demands of the international community.
. . .
I will read the communiqué we issued late yesterday:
"Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy met with Mohammed ElBaradei, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on January 18."
"France attaches special importance to IAEA action and is one of the main contributors to the Agency's technical cooperation. The meeting afforded an opportunity to address the main proliferation problems confronting us, particularly Iran and North Korea."
"With regard to Iran, Mr. Douste-Blazy recalled that our objective is for Iran to comply with its commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and with the decisions of the Security Council and IAEA. In other words, for it to suspend its sensitive nuclear activities which are a matter of concern to the international community and have no credible civilian application in Iran today."
"In adopting resolution 1737 in December establishing sanctions for the first time, the Security Council sent a clear and unanimous message to Iran. We intend to implement without delay all the measures stipulated in the Council's resolution. We call on Iran to accept the offer of cooperation from the Six and the proposal for 'dual suspension' referred to in 1737 which would allow negotiations to begin. Mr. ElBaradei will present his report to the Security Council in February, and the Council will review Iran's application of the Security Council and IAEA decisions."
"With regard to the development of nuclear energy in the world, Mr. Douste-Blazy recalled that France is very attached to the right, recognized in Article 4 of the NPT, to develop the use of nuclear energy for peaceful ends with due respect for non-proliferation commitments. Because of proliferation risks, the dissemination of sensitive technologies, particularly enrichment and reprocessing has to be limited. But it is appropriate on the other hand to offer credible assurances of access to nuclear fuel. France presented a concrete proposal to the IAEA last June, with five other states providing enrichment services (United States, Russia, the UK, Germany and the Netherlands) to guarantee the supply of fuel. We hope to move forward quickly on this question."
. . .