|
| Updated: 14-Dec-2004 | NATO Speeches |
|
NATO HQ 9 Dec. 2004 |
with M. Michel Barnier, Minister of Foreign Affairs of France
I found, today, at this Ministerial Council (...) a special and constructive atmosphere. Special, because it was the last session for Colin Powell. And the atmosphere was special because of the departure of a respected, influential man. (...) Over the past eight months, and, of course, before, there were significant problems, disagreements and differences of view between Americans and French, and I wanted publicly – as I did this morning to my colleagues – personally to express my friendship and gratitude to Colin Powell and give him my good wishes for the next stages of his personal life. The atmosphere was also constructive (...): whatever our past disagreements, and we aren't forgetting them, we want to look ahead. We want for the future to work today in the NATO framework, since that's the purpose of this meeting, and also outside it, in other circumstances, as constructively as possible, to deliver, wherever necessary, greater stability and security, and also progress. I said that this was how I felt when I took up my post in April, particularly with regard to the Iraq crisis, and I think that throughout the past few months France has not only said she was for this constructive approach, but has proved it, as far as Iraq is concerned. In both the discussion, then approval of UNSCR 1546, in the discussion, then approval by everyone at the Paris Club vis-à-vis the debt, in the preparation, then the conclusions of the Sharm el Sheikh Conference, we have in fact concretely demonstrated that this is our approach when it comes to helping Iraq's political and economic reconstruction, based on a firm belief that, I repeat, we won't find a solution to this tragedy through weapons or military operations, but through democracy and a political process which is under way and must succeed, in particular with the 30 January deadline, the elections in Iraq, to my mind a difficult challenge. This morning, in my speech, I talked about the concrete challenges and tasks for 2005: the Balkans, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. I shall also say a word about the reason for us being here together, i.e. the transatlantic relationship. This transatlantic relationship has been NATO's raison d'être since its creation. In the framework of this alliance, the transatlantic dialogue has been built, taken further in NATO, I was going to say from the outset, exclusively in NATO. Indeed, for a very long time NATO was the exclusive forum of this transatlantic dialogue. And I think that NATO continues and will continue to have an essential role. It will have to adapt, as was decided in Prague. And we are taking part without any hang-ups in this organization and its progress. We are proving it moreover in Afghanistan and Kosovo since we French are today heading the military forces deployed in the NATO framework. As regards Afghanistan, moreover, this morning I announced an extra effort on the part of France to help prepare and bolster the security of the elections which will take place on a date next spring, which President Karzai will decide on. Whilst we are, without any hang-ups, in NATO, with our firm beliefs, we are playing our part in it and are keen for the organization to move with the times. But times are changing, this is the second point of this paradox, this new paradox when it comes to the transatlantic relationship as I see it. And what's changing is the very nature of the European Union which is, of course, a single market, a monetary union and progressively becoming a political player with, in particular, the new tools contained in the European Constitution. Amongst these tools, there is the common foreign policy – not a single, but a common one – and European defence which is being built, a chapter I'm very familiar with. Clearly we're becoming a political player – and this is one of my most long-standing political wishes. The European Union and United States have a transatlantic dialogue, as we have with Canada. This transatlantic dialogue is being consolidated and there are many reasons for its existence. So today NATO is no longer the exclusive forum of the transatlantic dialogue. And in this dialogue between Americans and Europeans, we have some real challenges which justify the need for what I've called a new partnership, a new transatlantic dialogue. The principal among them today (...) is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which clearly demands, in the new situation we're experiencing in the Middle East, a new joint commitment by the United States of America and the European Union, and other partners, inter alia the Russians and the United Nations, but first of all the United States of America and the European Union. This is what I've called the new paradox of the transatlantic relationship and the different dimensions or fora in which it must simultaneously be built on, developed and renovated. After the NATO ministerial meeting, we had a NATO-Russia dialogue (...) with my colleague and friend Sergei Lavrov. This dialogue gave me the opportunity to say that, as regards the crisis in Ukraine, which is happily moving towards a political and peaceful outcome, our attitude as Europeans – since it was Javier Solana who was the first to speak, and speak and act effectively in our name – our attitude hasn't been one of taking sides for one camp against the other, or of supporting one candidate against the other. Our attitude has been to defend the principles, democracy, and to say that in that country, in particular, but everywhere, the people's will had to be respected. I think this message has been understood, and on this issue of Ukraine there will even be a joint NATO-Russian position in the final declaration of our meeting. (...) Q. – Are you disappointed by the lack of progress on strengthening NATO in Afghanistan? How do you see the synergies between Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF and can President Bush's visit in February be seen as a fresh start in relations between the United States and the European Union? THE MINISTER – Yes, I've spoken several times about the goal of our meeting, of this transatlantic relationship, of its different fora, different dimensions, the reasons for building on, amplifying, revamping this transatlantic relationship. And I find it symbolic and important that the United States President is choosing to come to Europe to establish, with us, how we are going to give this new boost to this relationship, this alliance. I've often said that, for me, the alliance didn't mean allegiance on either side, but an alliance founded on mutual respect. And I think it's very important that just after his election, his investiture, the United States President, George Bush is himself coming to contribute to giving it this new boost. On ISAF's extension into western Afghanistan, indeed, we note that the conditions haven't yet been met to increase the forces and the effort, if I can put it like that. But this hasn't prevented us French from putting forward our proposal to step up our own effort, as I said just now, for preparing, bolstering the security of and supporting this very important event, the elections. After the first proof of the political and democratic rebuilding of Afghanistan, President Karzai's election, the new elections scheduled for the spring will be a second one. So we have to make a success of this stage. And we want to play our part in the success of this second stage of the elections in Afghanistan, where I am, moreover, going to pay an official visit at the end of the month. (...) Q. – A question today, a highly contentious one in my view. Mr Powell is criticizing some countries for not sending soldiers who are in NATO to the training mission in Iraq. Even if France has been a special case, since 1966, could you give us an opinion on this because France is among these countries, like Spain and Germany? THE MINISTER – There's no misunderstanding or ambiguity here. Ever since the first mention of a NATO intervention in Iraq, we have expressed reservations. Here too, with the sole concern to be useful, to say useful things so that the political and economic process of rebuilding Iraq goes forward, we have expressed reservations. And from the outset, we have also said that there wouldn't, I repeat, not today, nor tomorrow, be either French soldiers or officers in Iraq. So the ground rules are clear. I added today that, given the security situation in Iraq, it would very probably be more efficient and more useful for the security forces to be trained outside Iraq. So since the initial training is in fact going to take place in the green zone, foreshadowing what's been called the military academy in Iraq, there won't be either French officers or French trainers. Let me point out that the proposed academy, which is for the moment a virtual one, will, of course, be located somewhere in the suburbs of Baghdad, but for the moment, given the situation, the training is taking place in the green zone. But it's taking place without any French officers. And we aren't the only country this applies to, as you know. Q. – Do you believe it's possible to repair your trustful relations and the American Administration so long as the Iraq problem continues, in a way, to divide you? THE MINISTER – But we have lots
of areas in which we are working
with
trustful
relations. Lots.
The fight
against
terrorism
is one of these
and very probably the most important.
Lots of crisis-management cases,
in Africa, Haiti, Kosovo
and Afghanistan. Today we want to look forward, that's how we feel. Again, let's not forget these disagreements and the past. Let's not forget either, when it comes to France and the United States of America, that we've been Allies from the start. They are our oldest Allies, we are their oldest Allies. That's why we're working in this spirit, talking frankly to each other and working together in lots of areas. Q. – As regards Kosovo, how do you think the situation is going to develop next year? Ambassador Eide has said that high-level contacts should start now, but the situation seems difficult at a time when the new prime minister is perhaps going to be indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. THE MINISTER – The situation in Kosovo is very fragile. I have personally visited all the Balkan countries since I became minister and this is a part of Europe which I am strongly committed to, not only as a French, but also a European minister. Indeed I think that in the Balkans, the European Union is undergoing a credibility test of its own foreign and neighbourhood policy and its own ability to ensure for itself and by itself the continent's security and stability. This is why Operation Althea in the Berlin Plus framework is very important and very symbolic, as moreover is what we're doing more modestly in Macedonia. The situation is fragile, as we saw in March when there were intolerable acts of violence against the Serb minority. We're seeing it with the new government in Priština. Will it be capable of conducting the reforms which have to be carried out in Kosovo? I hope so. I'm talking about decentralization and protecting minorities. But here too we have no alternative, except to accept unrest or wars like the medieval-type one which the Europeans weren't capable of preventing 15 years ago, after the explosion of Yugoslavia. So we have no alternative to maintaining the military stabilization effort and, in each of these territories, encouraging and supporting democracy and economic progress; because this forms a whole, everything is connected. What will ensure long-term stability?
It's the prospect of EU membership,
since there's
no obligation
to
apply for this,
but
when a country
does, as is the case for Croatia
who has made this choice, and
before her
Slovenia, and as is clearly the
intention of Serbia, Albania
and Macedonia,
it has to promise good behaviour. This
is what the European project
is; for me
it's the
finest political
project
since it's one
which commits
those subscribing to it to build
progress, peace and stability
rather than maintain
conflicts. Of course, if a country opts
for the prospect of joining Europe,
it can't
simultaneously
retain old-fashioned nationalist,
and I mean nationalist,
attitudes. So such countries
have
to choose, and
several
are in the process
of doing or have already done
so. (...) Q. – I'd like to know whether you share the opinion of some countries that the agreement today on Iraq is a success? Until now, there were a few figures on the number of men due immediately to go to Iraq, and these figures have changed; so there's a bit of confusion. What's your view on this? Is or isn't it a success? THE MINISTER – I don't know if one should describe as a success or a failure what consists simply of doing what was already said a few months ago in Istanbul. I don't think there's anything new, except that this could have been done earlier. One has to be pragmatic given the difficult circumstances in Baghdad. For the moment, what's involved is simply the activation of a decision taken – under the conditions to which I drew attention for the countries which have decided not to participate, it's the case for my country – on training security forces in Iraq. I repeat that we aren't against helping with the training of the security forces, and particularly the police, outside Iraqi territory, if we're asked. This isn't what's involved here. What's been confirmed today is a first concrete stage in the implementation of a decision taken in Istanbul. 
|
|||||||||
