| | | |

| Home : | Speeches and documents > 2007

|

G8 Summit final press conférence given by M. Nicolas SARKOZY, President of the Republic - excerpts -

Print

Heiligendamm, 8 June 2007

AFRICA/WTO

(···)

THE PRESIDENT - (···) This morning we had an extremely interesting discussion on Africa clearly showing we had to be confident about the continent's future, that Africa could succeed and that some African countries - I have in mind South Africa, Ghana and others - were succeeding, and that this partnership was necessary to create wealth. I was very interested, moreover, in President Wade's comment that Africa didn't need charity but development aid. That's exactly what I think.

The discussions were very substantive, very interesting - as they were at midday on the WTO, when I told President Bush that I shall fight to defend our interests as he is fighting to defend the Americans' interests, and that reciprocity was appropriate and naivety had to go out of the window if one wanted an agreement. (···)

LEBANON/SYRIA/IRAN

Q. - You told us this morning, after your meeting with President Bush, that you had the same approach as the Americans on Lebanon and that you had talked to him about it and about Iran. The US spokesperson has told us that you apparently discussed Lebanon, Syria and Iran. And since you have accustomed us to your speaking very openly, perhaps you could tell us what your approach is on Lebanon, Syria and Iran?

THE PRESIDENT - On Lebanon, it's that country's right to independence, without any form of interference or, of course, occupation. It's support for the legitimate government and so too for the army which is trying to restore order against all the militia, and it's the need to find a political agreement with all the players, and heaven knows there are a lot of them! These are the initiatives we're in the process of taking with Bernard Kouchner.

And here, I've not noted, in the past, any difference of view between the Americans and us.

On Syria, there may be some differences of assessment, very probably due to the fact that, for the past six and a half years, President Bush hasn't seemed to me extremely satisfied with the course of his relations with the Syrian President. Should or shouldn't discussions with Syria be resumed and [if they should], at what level? This is a question we have to consider today. It's being looked at today, not at a political level, perhaps at a diplomatic level, from our point of view.

As regards Iran, there seems to me to be a great meeting of minds with China, Russia and the United States on encouraging the Iranian leaders to return to the negotiating table. As far as I'm concerned, I think that a message of firmness will have to be sent and certainly sanctions toughened. I believe that the sanctions policy must create the conditions for a debate within Iranian society, which is descended from a great civilization. We shall say, of course, that above all there must be no conflation between the Iranians, a great people, and today's leaders, who include the President who makes unspeakable remarks.

(···)

AFGHANISTAN

Q. - This morning, according to a US spokesperson, you apparently told Mr Bush that France was ready to send more troops to Afghanistan. Is this correct? And secondly, if it is, would those French soldiers go to southern Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT - We need to make things clear. First of all, I said to our Canadian friends, our American friends, our allies, that we won't break the allies' solidarity in the battle engaged against terrorism in Afghanistan and to stabilize the Afghan State. First thing.

Second thing, I told them that we will increase our training support for the Afghan army in the form of 50-people teams.

Thirdly, I told them of the possibility of assisting in the country's reconstruction particularly with respect to hospitals and schools. I'd like France's effort to go more to helping with training to prepare the Afghan State for the transition and reconstruction.

I might add that I asked for everyone talking to Pakistan to alert that country to the need to help the forces over there eradicate terrorism and the drug economy.

(···)

DARFUR/CHINA

Q. - There have been reports of many violent incidents in Darfur. In your view, how can the Paris meeting at the end of the month succeed where the others haven't?

THE PRESIDENT - First of all, on Darfur, I asked the Chinese President to use all his influence to exert pressure on President al-Bashir to get Sudan to accept the deployment of a hybrid force on his territory.

Secondly, I asked the Chinese President for China's foreign minister to be at the meeting of the enlarged Contact Group.

Thirdly, the aim of this meeting, which Bernard Kouchner will chair, isn't to act in place of the African Union. I have told the Chairman of the Commission of the African Union that the idea was in no way to complicate his task, but, on the contrary, to do the utmost to help get a political solution.

FRENCH NUCLEAR DETERRENT

Q. - If France's interests are threatened, how far will you go as regards what are called preventive nuclear strikes?

THE PRESIDENT - The value of nuclear weapons is deterrence. As far as I know at the moment there's no emergency, France's nuclear strategy and nuclear doctrine are [based on the protection of France's] vital interests. If France's vital interests were threatened, then, at that point, like all the other French presidents who have preceded me, I would be able to consider the use of nuclear weapons. Most happily, this isn't the case.

But, as for the specific definition of vital interests, I'm not sure that this is the most appropriate framework. Even though I'm quite ready to recognize that the concept of vital interests has evolved since General de Gaulle's time.

HIV/AIDS

Q. - On AIDS issues, you recently reiterated your commitment to honour the G8's commitments at Gleneagles. These were for universal access to treatment for all by 2010. You even went a step further by saying that you would propose a finance plan to divide the amount of money to be provided between the different G8 countries. This isn't in the final communiqué. Can you tell us a bit more? What happened?

THE PRESIDENT - The G8 has pledged to fund health in Africa to the tune of $60 billion dollars over the next few years. The amount has indeed been specified, but not the exact number of years. It's a substantial sum of money. The United States has pledged to finance half of it. France is going to devote $1 billion a year to health in Africa.

Let me add that I proposed, when we saw the five NEPAD countries, i.e. the African countries involved in framing a new partnership, that before each G8 meeting, experts should draw up a progress report on the fulfilment of the promises, so we put an end to these debates when we throw figures at each other.

As far as France is concerned, I'd like to say that we are the second-largest contributor to the Global Fund for the Fight against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The largest is the United States, the second-largest is France. I really believe that if there's one country with nothing to reproach itself for in this respect, it really is ours.

LEBANON/SYRIA

Q. - With your permission, I want to come back to Lebanon and Syria. Can we understand from what's been said that French contacts with Syria are possible if the goal is to help stabilize the situation in Lebanon?

THE PRESIDENT - Let's say they aren't impossible if the goal is to guarantee Lebanon's independence, find Mr Hariri's murderers and offer peace to that battered country.

SIMPLIFIED EU TREATY

Q. - Can you tell us any more about what you've achieved on the simplified treaty?

THE PRESIDENT - No, but I can tell you that, on the principle, there will be a meeting in London in the next few days between Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and me.

This is, after all, something which will give us the opportunity to go a bit further with the definition of the major principles. Basically what do we want? A simplified treaty and not a little Constitution.

KOSOVO

Q. - Knowing that in many foreign policy areas you share the US approach, is France ready, like the United States, to take on board this plan B - i.e. recognize Kosovo's independence without a resolution at the Security Council? Officials in Priština have told us that adoption of this proposal would be a betrayal. How will you explain to your Kosovar friends that you don't mean to betray them by taking that decision?

(···)

THE PRESIDENT - As regards this resolution, I think that France has really done enough and is continuing to do enough for her to be given credit for sincerity. A resolution voted on, or more exactly presented and then vetoed by the Russians, would lead to an inextricable situation in Kosovo. What would then be the legal status of the forces over there? I'd like that explained to me.

There would be European countries recognizing Kosovo's independence, others disputing it. What would be the legal status at that point since the new resolution wouldn't have been adopted, because of the possible, probable Russian veto? What's the legal status of the troops there? What would the Kosovars gain by that? I'd like someone to explain the situation to me.

I'm still convinced that we have to remain united, that the future goal is Kosovo's independence. I said this extremely frankly to Mr Putin. The question I ask myself is "is it really not in our interest to wait for a few weeks or months to find a consensual solution, or do we want to go ahead without one?". I think it's in our interest to find a consensual solution.

I defended the principle of clearly recognized and guaranteed independence for Kosovo. I really believe that this is the only reasonable position. It's up to us to exert pressure simultaneously on the Kosovars whom we have helped a lot, and on the Serbs who have to understand that, regardless of the outcome, they will be living side by side, it's a geographical reality.

I don't believe it's in our interest to rush things. Now, as you know, the commonsense solution isn't always adopted. At all events, I've looked at the inextricable situation Kosovo would find itself in if we wanted to go ahead without a consensual solution. This is all the same something we need to think about; everyone knows what the problem is.

(···)

My commitment to Kosovo's independence, sovereignty, is well known, it's ineluctable. I even said to Mr Putin that Yugoslavia was no more. When he said there's a risk of other regions asking for the same conditions, I told him no. I even went as far as telling him that Yalta was no more. Do we need to do this now or should we give ourselves six months? We can also reflect on this, it isn't absurd. That's what I think.

I recognize that the situation there is extremely complicated. But, now that Mr Putin has said that what's most likely is that he'll use a veto, I say that we must, all the same, reflect. It's not a matter of giving in to threats but simply trying to get people to come together so there's no resumption of what would be bloody clashes in this part of the Balkans. That's what I think, and there's no question of any betrayal, how can that be said vis-à-vis a country with 2,000 troops there (···).

I suggested [a delay of] six months with a principle, that of independence, so that Priština and Belgrade talk to each other. This seems extremely reasonable to me. It may be too ambitious for some, what do you want me to say? Anyway, the Russian President should also clearly see the realities here.

I wish you all a safe journey back. Thank you.

|