Press briefing given by M. Bernard Kouchner, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs (excerpts)

Paris, 18 March 2008

(…)

EUFOR

I’d like to say a few words about EUFOR which achieved operational capacity on 15 March. Naturally, the deployment will be continuing since the number of soldiers is scheduled to reach 3,700 and there are 1,700 present at this time.

There are 15 countries in the field and 22 countries taking part in the chain of command under General Nash of Ireland who’s installed in the multinational operational headquarters in Mont-Valérien.

The 27 countries of the European Union have financed the operational capacity.

We’re hoping for a lot from it, particularly in terms of the encouragement that this European force means for the deployment of the hybrid force on the other side of the Chad border, in Sudan. I saw Mr Ban Ki-moon and Jean-Marie Guéhenno, the director of peacekeeping operations, just a few days ago. No one doubts that the deployment of EUFOR strengthens the decisions that will be taken to augment the hybrid force on the other side of the border, in Sudan. The European force on the Chadian side, the hybrid force, i.e. the African Union and UN, on the other. This force is scheduled to number 26,000 troops in Darfur.

In addition, it’s the occasion to welcome with hope the Dakar declaration and the agreement between the Sudanese and Chadian presidents, between Mr al-Bashir and M. Déby.

A lot of pacts have been signed. There’ve been five, including three in Tripoli. Now there’s another in Dakar. I hope this will be the right one.

So I hope these stepped-up efforts lead obviously to a peace process, to a political process without which there will be no peace. I think the deployment of French forces and European forces together on one hand, then the international forces, specifically African and UN forces on the other, is still the best thing we could do.

I’d like to call your attention to a political meeting in Geneva today on Darfur. I hope that all these events will be beneficial to the various parties in moving towards peace.

AFGHANISTAN

France is organizing in close conjunction with Germany, who had originally proposed the idea, a meeting, a donors’ conference – actually more a conference for exchanging ideas – about Afghanistan. The conference will be held in Paris on either 12 or 17 June.

It’s a very important conference. There are major concerns with respect to Afghanistan about both strategy and political strategy. You’ll have seen this in various countries, particularly in Canada, Holland and other countries.

We hope that this Paris conference will produce financing for projects that are very necessary to develop infrastructure. It will allow participants to take stock of what has been done with respect to civil society, with Afghans quite simply. Without the Afghans, it is very difficult to envision the future.

We’re putting on this conference with the Afghans naturally.

Q. – About the June conference on Afghanistan. Do you have some idea of the participants and the approximate amount needed to rebuild the country? Also, is France planning to increase her military capability in Afghanistan? Three additional Rafales have been sent, you’ve got combat teams integrated with the Afghan army and there are also plans to deploy Leclerc tanks. Does France have a two-pronged policy – to inject funds and help Afghanistan on the economic front, and at the same time increase its military capability?

THE MINISTER – You’ve heard the promises President Sarkozy has made several times in Kabul and Paris with respect to military capacities. The promise was clear: we will be engaged, we will not leave. Now, as for the military details you referred to, let’s wait a while so we can be a bit more specific. The Bucharest summit is being held in a few days.

What we wish – and I say this with much caution and modesty – is to act in consultation in the military sphere and in the much-vaunted area of “nation-building” [sic]. That’s what has to be done. And it will only be done with the full and complete involvement of the Afghans. I’m the one to tell you this – it’s France’s policy of course, but I’ve been advocating this policy in humanitarian terms and in terms of personal commitment for 40 years! If you don’t work with the local population, you’ve lost before you start. Engaging with the local population in Afghanistan has been going on a long time. It needs to be increased. There mustn’t be a single project in which Afghans are not fully and completely participating, and very soon leading. That’s the general strategy, summed up rather briefly and bluntly.

Now, there has to be a common strategy among the various participants – a lot of countries have troops over there – I’m speaking of European countries but of course I’m also thinking of the United States and of course Canada and Australia, all of them. I’m not for a moment claiming to be defining a military strategy, you understand. But we’re going to be talking together. And the reason I’m not giving you the amount you wanted is because we’re in the process of talking.

The people tasked with organizing the conference – the same ones who planned the conference on Palestine – are going round the countries. They’ve been to the US. I’m going to Kabul shortly. It’s important to organize the conference so that it’s not simply a “raise your hand and how much are you giving” event. We’re hoping for more. We’re very ambitious. Both modest and ambitious: modest as to the results and ambitious about the message.

People have to understand what the democracies are doing in Afghanistan, what progress they’re making and what their goals are. This won’t be settled in a day – let’s not take things to extremes. But frankly, it’s necessary. There was a phenomenal discussion, maybe the finest, with that on Kosovo, with the 27 foreign ministers in the European Council on Thursday evening – for four hours. It just so happened that there were two countries, two foreign ministers, who had been personally involved in Afghanistan for a very long time: the Polish minister, Mr Sikorski, an outstanding journalist and Pulitzer Prize Winner who spent two and a half years in Afghanistan, and myself, and I’ve been going to Afghanistan for eight years. So we were telling the truth. And it was fascinating – that’s politics. It’s not making statements. It’s giving a bit of substance to such statements. I admire people who have a great, very simple, marvellous analysis of the world. The fact is that everyone agreed that we should give some substance to all this, and the Paris conference will, I hope, be rich in substance. The question came up, moreover, as to whether it shouldn’t be held over two days because of the large number of debates and speeches. We’ll see.

The amounts aren’t fixed yet because they’ll be calculated just before the conference. The amount for Palestine was 5 billion, and we got 7.7. There’s a minimum, and afterwards, who knows.

(…)

KOSOVO

Q. – You told me here ten days ago that on the whole things were going well for Kosovo. Since then, there’s been the resignation of the Serbian prime minister, with a government which isn’t functioning. So at the moment there’s a serious crisis in Serbia. Yesterday there were incidents between Serbian demonstrators and UN and NATO troops because a building was being evacuated, which led to one death and over a hundred people being injured. Who are things going well for today in Kosovo? Are we heading towards a separation of northern Kosovo? In your opinion is this increasingly likely?

THE MINISTER – Was this action necessary? I press the point because there were negotiations on Sunday evening between the Serbian ministers and UN representatives which seemed to have been conducted successfully.

I deeply regret these events – I mean the events which occurred at the Mitrovica court, which, as you know, is in the northern part of the city, on the other side of the River Ibar.

A few days ago I published a “joint letter to our Serbian friends” with Mr Carl Bildt.

It’s in this spirit that I continue to call for restraint on the part of the Serbs, the international community too because no good can come out of such clashes. You were right to draw attention to the large number of victims. Indeed, a Ukrainian policeman died last night. There’s been talk of two Serbs being injured. We haven’t heard any more about them, I hope that’s a good sign. 20 French soldiers were injured, some very slightly, and eight are in hospital. At least 80 people were injured.

How do you expect me to express with decorum and restraint, as a foreign minister must, my condemnation of all these events? It won’t serve any purpose. These clashes were only to be expected! We knew the court was a target for a number of Serbian militants. The court was seized. Yes, indeed, a Serbian minister was there and was negotiating in the northern part of Mitrovica.

And above all, yesterday, 17 March, was the exact anniversary of the 2004 riots, if I’m not mistaken!

All this shows that we’ve really got to have our wits about us. You talked about the political repercussions with the government’s resignation. There will be a general election at the beginning of May, in Belgrade and throughout the country. That’s very good and now’s the time to campaign, and not just on the past! You know our Serbian friends, they start a sentence in the present and finish it in the past. That’s not what’s got to be done, they have to talk in the future now!

We have to talk about the Serbs, Serbia, the necessity for Serbia, this great stable country on which the Balkans’ stability depends, to join the European Union. This, I hope, will be the major theme in the election campaign. I hope so and I’m ready to do everything, I’ve said this, Carl Bildt and I have said this – and don’t think that we’ve excluded the 25 other European foreign ministers who think as we do. It’s a European matter. Simply, Carl Bildt and I – and we haven’t done this to exclude either Mr Steinmeier, or Mr Miliband, or the others – have had very special responsibilities in the Balkans, working for the United Nations. That’s why we wrote the letter, together.

In it we refer to all the problems we want to resolve with the European Union, under French presidency, under Slovenian presidency. In particular, the visa problem, and we’re getting down to work on this.

Q. – Why was this action necessary?

THE MINISTER – If you want to maintain order, when a court is seized by rioters, you have to negotiate, admittedly, and then restore order. Alas! And if you don’t want order to have to be restored then you mustn’t cause disorder! It won’t serve any purpose. The international community won’t let itself be intimidated even though I understand very well what’s going on in the minds of Serbs – and I want to assure them moreover of my friendship and support. We tried. There were talks. We tried for two years to get talks on Kosovo’s status. Why weren’t there any? Now I’m told there were talks after the court was seized. But what should have been done was to think about talking to each other, convincing each other and trusting each other throughout these past few years! I put together – not me personally but the United Nations – a government in which the Serbs and minorities, not just the Serbs and Albanians of Kosovo, shared responsibilities. (…) It lasted. I stayed there only two years, but it functioned. Why did it stop working? There’s no solution through violence in Kosovo. And there’s no solution through violence in the Balkans. I’ve said this before and I say it again. The violence is over. And it’s very symbolic that it’s under Slovenian presidency that Kosovo is the last country of the former Yugoslav federation to break away. We must move on to the next chapter. The next chapter is for Serbia’s young people, and it was President Tadic – I salute him – who won the election. So, there’s hope. I hope it will be realized at the time of the general election. I’m sorry my answer’s been a bit long, but it’s a subject close to my heart.

Q. – I’d like to go back to Kosovo. There’s the fact that Pristina and the north are cut off because there are parallel Serbian structures in the north. So how do you deal with this situation and how is it to be resolved?

THE MINISTER – First, by preventing all incidents, and not letting certain groups, well known to me, in northern Kosovo or even from Serbia, provoke incidents. And by maintaining international borders. But within the country, between the communities – i.e. overwhelmingly between the Serbs and Albanians of Kosovo, now the Kosovars – by avoiding all incidents, not letting them develop and sticking to the idea of dialogue at all costs. For the rest, we’ll see. Until now, things were going well. Yesterday’s events are a tragedy, and as I’ve said, I utterly condemn them. These events will contribute nothing to the debate and nothing to the solution, that is, peace in the Balkans. I can’t tell you how – I’m not the one directing operations. UNMIK is responsible for the police and for the rest there’s KFOR, that is to say, NATO. By working with them, in permanent consultation and dialogue with our Serbian friends. If there’s no dialogue with them, we have everything to fear. It is essential not only to keep the dialogue going but to expand it, always keep the hand extended, to think up a thousand ways for dialogue. I did it, and at far more difficult time. It’s possible, and I know that in fact not only Serbia’s young people but a majority of Serbs want to. They want to turn the page and move towards Europe. Europe represents the future of the Serbs. We will do everything we can to enable them to join as quickly as possible, France will in any case.

(…)

TIBET

Q. – About Tibet where there’ve been serious incidents since Friday. What do you think of the idea of boycotting the Games or at least the opening ceremony? The Dalai Lama is asking for an international inquiry. Is France going to back that request?

THE MINISTER – We should perhaps talk a little about the Tibetans. I can answer these three questions very quickly: there’s been no international demand other than the Dalai Lama’s. If there is an international demand, it has to go through the international organizations, and France will give her answer there. I don’t see any demands at this point either from the UN or European Union. The EU did issue a statement on Friday. The Dalai Lama, whom I’ve heard and know well, isn’t asking for a boycott of the Olympic Games. (…) I also saw that Reporters Without Borders [RSF] this morning called for a boycott of the opening ceremony, not the Olympic Games. It’s a different position, which can be appreciated, and of course, if this were asked for, it would mean that Europe in any case will confer about it. We shall be meeting with foreign ministers next week for two days of work in Slovenia and we’ll be considering all this.

Obviously, there must be an investigation into what has happened. You mentioned an international inquiry. Lots of international inquiries are requested. Incidentally we’ve not spoken about Chad, but people are asking for one there too. It’s very, very slow getting all this going. But there is one initial international inquiry that ought to be made – by journalists. Journalists don’t have access, and they must have access to the territory in question – to Tibet in particular but not just there since there are incidents apparently beyond Tibet. So that seems to me to be an obvious necessity since our Chinese friends have recognized the universality of human rights. Well, the right to information has to be respected.

And then I’m hearing with anger and sadness people talking about the figures of the dead and injured, which we don’t even know but which are very high, apparently. We need to know: 80, 100, 20, 13? These things ought to be verified. I had a message this morning from my Chinese counterpart, Mr Yang. He says that order has been restored and that the whole thing, all these events, was orchestrated, and he’s accusing the Dalai Lama. I leave him to his opinion obviously, and I take note of this information. The Dalai Lama is not a man to spread disorder and confrontation. I know him well enough to say the opposite. In all the years we’ve known each other, he’s always displayed a very peaceful view of matters. I would remind you that the Dalai Lama has never demanded Tibet’s independence. He speaks of cultural autonomy. This is an extremely measured demand. Now, it’s not up to me to decide of course, it’s for our Chinese friends. We’re keeping a very close eye on all this and on the development of the situation. And I repeat that the first thing should be freedom of access for the press. It’s necessary, I think, without there being any provocation.

BEIJING OLYMPIC GAMES

Q. - What’s your position on the proposal to boycott the opening ceremony at the Olympic Games?

THE MINISTER – I heard about the proposal this morning and I think it’s interesting. I have said, and it’s very clear that, if there were a position – and it could only be a European one – we’ll talk about it. The proposal is less negative than a general boycott. May I remind you that I took part in a boycott in 1980 for the Moscow Olympic Games – I just want to point out that then the boycott included about 50 countries, China being one of them. China boycotted the Moscow Games in 1980 at the time of the events in Afghanistan.

But you asked me for my position, and the French position is that France won’t boycott the Olympic Games. It doesn’t seem fair to us and at the same time, after our experience, hardly useful. As I said, how can you ask us, a government that is friendly with China, that has very friendly relations with it – just recently we had further exchanges – to be more Tibetan than the man who is recognized as being the spiritual leader of the Tibetans, the Dalai Lama, who isn’t asking for this boycott. I understand the activists and am following them closely. I consider that it is the duty of a foreign minister to listen to civil society and the activists’ initiatives and that in the matter of human rights there is never too much advice or too many initiatives. So I’m listening to them. The initiative proposed by Reporters Without Borders, which does not have the support of the French government, dates from this morning. Let’s consider it. (…)./.