| | | |

| Home : | Speeches and documents > 2007

|

G8 Summit press conférence given by M. Nicolas SARKOZY, President of the Republic (excerpts) (part 1)

Print

Heiligendamm, 7 June 2007

(···)

GLOBAL WARMING

Q. - What details could you give us on the progress and agreement achieved on the climate?

THE PRESIDENT - The progress on the climate is pretty significant since we started from the point when President Bush was saying: "there aren't any problems, there are no consequences of carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, man isn't to blame". First gesture, President Bush said: "there's a problem". Second gesture, man is to blame, third gesture, we have to act. That was the situation yesterday.

Yesterday evening, another obstacle was removed: President Bush accepted the idea that the solution to the deterioration of the climate had to be found in the UN framework, so through [the December UN climate talks in] Bali. In our view, this didn't impede holding a meeting of the G8 and emerging countries to take things forward, but recognition of the UN and its role was for us a red line, since the solution to the deterioration of the climate has to entail both cutting the production of greenhouse gases and, at the same time, encouraging countries, particularly poor ones, with forests to reforest, in the knowledge that, over its lifetime, a tree consumes a tonne of carbon. For example, the Republic of Congo doesn't emit greenhouse gases because of its poverty and its economy, but has the world's second-largest forest and it's extremely important for this to be maintained, developed and preserved. At the same time as cutting greenhouse gases, we have to increase the size of the forests to consume the carbon. This point - which was a very difficult one -, i.e. the UN's legitimacy to act to defend the climate and the planet's ecological balances, has been resolved.

Finally, last step forward, at the end of the morning and beginning of the afternoon, I pushed for the inclusion of a figure in the final communiqué: the famous figure of cutting greenhouse emissions by 50% by 2050. This was one of President Bush's red lines and you will see that the communiqué says that the G8 countries are seriously considering the target of the 50% cut. You have to say things as they are: I'd have preferred it to be a binding target, there's still a bit of progress to make. But look where we started from, and we got the word "seriously" at the beginning of the afternoon.

So, despite everything, I think I can say that there have been significant advances. I had made this one of this G8's priorities, we can't wait, we have to act. It would have been an unforgivable moral failing not to do so. It's a French priority and, from this point of view, this G8 has led to very significant progress on the issue of the climate and safeguarding the planet's future.

So is it enough? I leave you to go on endlessly debating that. For me, what's important is that we've got a path and that we're moving forward on it. We've made headway and this 50% target in 2050 is in the communiqué. How many of you, who are specialists on this, thought it would be in the communiqué?

DARFUR

Q. - You have called for an international conference on Darfur in Paris. You are in favour of a political solution, of humanitarian corridors, but do you share the Americans' view of imposing sanctions on Sudan?

THE PRESIDENT - I think our position is very close to the American one. I'd like to say that I feel close to all the countries which, across the world, consider that one can't let people die on the borders between Sudan, Chad and the Central African Republic. We can't, because they are poor and abandoned, also let them die and be killed by guerrillas, gangs and rebels in conflicts they have nothing to do with. And so, since the United States is in favour of action, France on her side is too. We can't stay saying nothing. There have been something like 250,000 deaths. Is or isn't it genocide? I don't think it's genocide, but it's in any event a humanitarian disaster.

So what's the solution we're proposing? We have agreed on a solution. First of all, there needs to be as quickly as possible the hybrid force, i.e. a military interposition force in that part of the world, composed of African Union soldiers and UN soldiers and officers to prevent people getting killed.

Secondly, there has to be a political settlement and all the parties to the conflict have to agree to discuss, and here they need to build on the conclusions of the Tripoli conference.

Thirdly, I have asked M. Kouchner to make a round of visits in the region in order to report back to us on the actual situation so we can see how to step up the humanitarian aid. We are, as you know - which in no way simplifies matters - in the rainy season. There are some 200 camps in Sudan and Chad in a territory the size of France. The concept of humanitarian corridors is a fine idea, but we have to find the means to carry it out.

Fourthly, on 25 June there will be a meeting at foreign-minister level of the Contact Group broadened to include a number of countries, including China who has a very positive influence on Sudan, and Egypt. I shall have a meeting with the ministers.

Final point, if any government - and I'll mention no name - were to stand in the way of either the humanitarian intervention or a political settlement, it goes without saying that the international community would be justified in proposing sanctions against that government. The G8 was unanimous on this. (···)

UK/SIMPLIFIED EU TREATY

Q. - You had a meeting today with Prime Minister Tony Blair. You talked to him about the future of the institutional treaty and, on leaving the meeting, you said you had agreed on what could be the framework for this treaty. Can you give us a few more details on this agreement? And do Mr Blair and Mr Brown have exactly the same view on this?

THE PRESIDENT - First of all, Tony Blair and I had planned to meet to talk about the simplified treaty and we agreed on what we wanted: a new treaty and not a little Constitution. Here too, the words are significant. I'm talking to specialists, you will understand the difference.

Our European affairs advisers are working together to agree on the details, but I'm not sure that the G8 framework is the most appropriate one for talking about this and I'll be having other meetings next week since I'm going to Poland. I may also go to other places. One of these visits will give you the answer to the question you've just asked me.

As regards Gordon Brown, he's a man I know well since I was Finance Minister when he was. He's a man I think a lot of and I'll have the opportunity, in the coming days, of showing that the position I'm discussing with Britain is, of course, one shared by both men. (···).

RUSSIA/KOSOVO

Q. – You talked to President Putin about the matters which raise hackles. You talked about the murder of journalists, can you give us the details and tell us what was said?

THE PRESIDENT – Listen, I raised those matters without wanting to be prescriptive, and it's not for me to relate President Putin's answers, explain his difficulties or what he told me on the matter.

I said to President Putin that the world needed Russia to ensure its stability and that it's very important. You know Russia's influence on such complex issues as Iran matters. We talked at length about Kosovo and I made a proposal which I can give you details of.

I also said that we too, the older democracies, might have things to learn on human rights, that I myself was perfectly happy to talk about this and that my idea wasn't to wound Russian national feeling. My aim was to understand and draw attention. And we talked very calmly.

On Kosovo I made the following proposal: first of all I think it would result in a very difficult situation if we propose a decision at the Security Council and come up against a Russian veto. Indeed, I draw your attention to the fact that we'll find ourselves in the situation of having hundreds of troops on the ground without knowing their legal status, i.e. with some countries recognizing Kosovo's independence and others disputing it. I think we need to avoid running into conflict straightaway.

And the proposal I made is for President Putin to recognize – the terms are significant – the ineluctable prospect of Kosovo's independence. For six months we would ensure the perpetuation of the legal consequences of UNSCR 1244 in order to give a mandate to the soldiers on the ground; we'd encourage Belgrade and Priština to talk to each other. And, after six months, either Belgrade and Priština would have found a better status, and in that case, that's the one which would be applied, or they wouldn't have done so, and in that case the Ahtisaari solution would be applied. This would have the advantage of letting Mr Putin have a bit of time and forcing the Serbs and Kosvars to talk to each other. Without a legal status, there's a risk of the violence resuming and I don't quite see what we'd have to gain by that.

Then, there was a discussion with President Bush, Tony Blair and President Putin. If it were simple, people would know about it. It isn't absurd for people to discuss, ponder, and for the issue to raise problems for everyone. But it seems to me that this could be a middle way – which I'm not saying is perfect – for at any rate avoiding the tragedy of a division. I add that I'd see only benefits in allowing Mr Putin who fears, above all, the broadening of this to other situations, a bit of time. I believe it would be good for the region's balance.

(···)

ANTIMISSILE SHIELD

Q. – (···) You talked about discussions between the French and Russian military, but do you think this could be dealt with in another multilateral framework and not just the G8? If so, is it in the European Union, NATO or the NATO-Russia Council. Are you envisaging this type of discussion?

THE PRESIDENT – There's a debate on this. First of all, there's the NATO-Russia framework since, after all, this concerns decisions taken by the United States with Poland and the Czech Republic in the NATO framework. So the natural framework is the NATO-Russia one.

But if I want to be totally honest intellectually, the easy thing for me would be to say that it's a bilateral issue. Initially, it's a matter between the United States and the Russians, but this isn't satisfactory. Secondly, I could even say it's a NATO-Russian matter. This is the view of foreign policy experts. But if I have the right to take a liberty, a tiny one, it's also a European problem. Because, all the same, two European countries have taken a decision and it was their right to do so. We also have to understand their history and memories of it. But it's never satisfactory when Europe isn't united.

Since President Putin had given me, in detail, his proposal involving use of the radar station in Azerbaijan – and if France wants to play a role in getting everyone to pull together, in calming tensions, being a bridge, bringing unity and peace and preventing misunderstandings and a return to a period we no longer want to see, i.e. the cold war – I really can't see why I wouldn't have grasped this opportunity of trying to understand Mr Putin's proposal.

I'm not a weapons expert, and I believe I've been very frank and taken a liberty. So I hope French diplomats won't hold it against me. But I think that it's always in people's interest to be frank, I think it's always in people's interest to be direct. I didn't want to tell anyone what to do, I didn't want to be arrogant with anyone. I've tried to understand, but in this effort to understand, I want others to understand our position as well.

I think the fact that it's an international matter, or a foreign policy matter, doesn't mean it has to be abstruse for all the people who listen to, watch and wonder what's being done, talked about, what's happening. Perhaps by speaking frankly to one another, we can find solutions more quickly than by skirting around the issues to such an extent and talking so much in code that at the end we part company, each convinced we've listened to or heard something different. I'm not saying I am right, but, at any rate, what I'm saying is unambiguous. Once again, I can understand the positions of Poland, the Czech Republic, Russians and United States. I can see misunderstandings but let's try and move forward. The international community hasn't come all this way to end up with a cold war. We're not going to just watch what's happening and accept a cold war, that doesn't make sense.

To be frank, I don't think President Putin, deep down, wants that. My analysis is that all this is more a political problem than a military one. So let's not let things drift off course and let's find political solutions. (···).

|