SIPA Events | Spring 2010

About this course

I am venture shall the director of the Colombia Peru surveillance program and on behalf of the Alliance Program in the School of International and public affairs it’s a great pleasure for me to

welcome you all at Columbia for a unique discussion on the non-proliferation issue and iron obviously our discussion tonight is extremely timely as the reduction of nuclear weapon production

has mobilized in two short relation affairs in the past month as the debate hovers over Iran as today celebrated the anniversary of the Iranian Revolution and while France is currently presiding

to the Security Council of the United Nations we are extremely fortunate to have with us tonight the French ambassador to the United Nations with Jojo haha ho who can accepted our

invitation tonight to engage in a debate with the students and the faculty of Columbia University obviously our topic tonight is a widely taught across schools and across departments at

Columbia you never see enough great interest to many of our students and our faculty and I like to take some time to thank a few of my colleagues at Columbia who promoted this event with us in

particular I’d like to thank the United Nations Studies program at ciba and Miss Elizabeth and Amalia the Middle East Institute at Columbia University the CDT are the center of the study of democracy

generation and religion the IRC PL the Institute for religion culture and public life and the Department of French studies at Columbia University and now on behalf of all of them in the contact

community is a great pleasure for me to welcome to Colombia ambassador jajaja home who is the permanent representative of friends to the United Nations in New York a former ambassador of friends to

Israel from 2003-2006 jajaja Idaho is so a former deputy secretary-general for the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs a foreign and European adversary and the direct a former director-general for

political efforts and security and in that capacity Jehovah the principal negotiator of the three sanction resolutions that were taken by the UN Security Council on Iran on behalf of

between 2006 and 2008 so thank you very much John Bassett Oliver Frey accepting our invitation tonight thank you in particular I have to say on behalf of two of your alma maters that is to say

the a coping technique ET on support who are as you know two pillars of the Alliance Program we also very fortunate to have with us tonight professor Mitchell yet will be our moderator

tonight Richard Elliot is a professor of history at Columbia University and a highly respected member and former director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia professor bill yet specializes

in Middle East history and the social and institutional history of Islamic countries he is the author among many others of the camel in the will and the case for the Christian is the mix

civilization published in 2006 so will now open the floor to ambassador arrow for his remark that will be followed by a discussion misc professor bill yet and then we will open the floor to the Q&A

which is a great much valued tradition at Columbia University for those of you who are not familiar to our gatherings please be prepared to be requested to stand in line behind the mic to ask your

questions thank you again for both of you for being with us tonight for a unique discussion your presence with us certainly embodies what we are the Orions program try to do a semester

after semester both in Paris and in New York that is to say attempt to offer platform for debate a platform transatlantic dialogue on the pressing issues on

x always rooted in the accademia thank you again good evening I actually I I nearly canceled my this this this meeting because the issue is so sensitive that I really am a bit

terrified but what I’m going to say so I’m going first to tell you and not here to discuss the news so I’m not going to answer any questions about the news you know really i’m here i’m not going to

discuss about you know the the most recent or the near future developments in the in the Iranian nuclear crisis you know this issue is too sensitive it’s negotiated by a few individuals and it’s

not possible to discuss it in public in real time it doesn’t mean that I’m not going that i’m going to say nothing it really means and neither i try not to be a typical diplomat you know really

typical diplomat would say nothing during two hours so what I’m going to say maybe will be maybe less exciting especially for for for the journal is to be but I hope that I at least I try to

help you to understand the crisis so my my my approach will be analytical and and based on the facts and on my own experience you know I’ve been the French negotiator since 2006 and 2 2009 and

actually before I had worked on these issues for five or six years I let you draw your own opinion from this analysis so the analysis would be mine the opinion will be will be yours so I make

a few points to open the discussions a few points and to try to make understand a very long long story the very the first point is that it’s a very long story it started in 2002 when actually

we were suddenly informed by several sources that there was a clandestine nuclear Iranian program and that which was actually quite a quite extensive in 2003 the free European ministers of

Foreign Affairs from from France from Germany and United Kingdom send a letter to to Iran and after that they went to to Tehran to try to say we have to discuss it we have to negotiate to

negotiate with you so it had started in 2003 with the free Europeans and later on three other countries have joined the group of negotiators which means China Russia and the United States so we have

created what is called the e3 plus three group the issue free the free Europeans plus free China Russia and in the United States so we have the international community has been negotiating with Iran

since 2003 so six years so it’s a very very long story so first i think i want to emphasize a few points first I think the nature of the Iranian nuclear program is raising concerns in the

international community at large let’s be you know the International Agency of atomic energy has voted to resolutions on it the UN Security Council has voted five resolutions among these five

resolutions free of them have imposed sanctions against Iran and these five resolutions have been voted with no dissent with no dissent Libya has voted sanctions against Iran South Africa as

voted sanctions against Iran you know in other words to be blunt it’s not Iraq revisited you know it’s not the West do nor against Iran it’s the international community at large which

expressing its concerns as you know France Germany China Russia have opposed the war against Iran Iraq against Iraq in 2003 and now not only not only they consider that really there is a problem

but actually they are in the driver’s seat of you know of their members of this group of six countries we tried to find a diplomatic outcome to the crisis so that’s the first point you know it’s

not to know the West it’s really the international community which expresses its concerns about this program the second point is nobody denies the right of Iran to nuclear civilian energy

nobody you know that’s not the problem the right which is enshrined in the non-proliferation treaty has been reaffirmed by all the decorations of the six ministers it has been reaffirmed by

all the resolutions of the UN Security Council the demand of the international community is is simple what we are asking to the Iranians is the restoration of the international

confidence in the civilian nature of the Iranian nuclear program the restoration of the international confidence in the civilian nature of the Iranian nuclear program the question is to define with

Iran the measures which could be taken which while respecting the rights of course of Iran would reassure the world it’s what we have tried for six years we have tried to open a negotiation with

Iran to have to define together these these measures Third Point as I’ve said it’s a very long story 2003 and I can tell you that since 2003 we have tried everything to open a negotiation we

really want to reach a diplomatic solution to the crisis so the free Europeans in the first time and later on the D 3 plus 3 we have met the Iranians dozens of times

hundreds of hours to try to open the negotiation we have made a lot a lot of different proposals proposals on the procedure proposal on the substance we are presented to Iran in 2006 and 2008

to proposal and compassing a wide range of fields of cooperation where we have not discussed only nuclear we have really proposed to the Iranians a wide range of cooperations in fields going

from agriculture to civilian to civilian aviation actually we went and I was member of the group we went to Tehran in June 2008 to present the second the second proposal and lastly and not the

least of course the Obama administration has offered to open the dialogue without preconditions with Iran in a bilateral on the bilateral basis as you can guess we the six countries we have maintained

an intensive dialogue with the Iranians at all level and all on all issues President Putin went to Tehran i think it was in 2007 or 2008 october the minute the Chinese Ministry of Foreign

Affairs the Russian Foreign Minister Foreign Affairs they went to Tehran to no avail and and that’s the problem that that you that we are facing and that we are really faced still facing today we

have not succeeded and let’s be frank we have not succeeded to open a negotiation it’s not a question of saying that our offer was not a sufficient it’s simply that the negotiation has never started

in six years that we have never had even the beginning of negotiation on the substance of our proposal they have been dismissed they have not been discussed we have never been told or what you are

is not enough because it would not be in the beginning no simply we have not succeeded to open a negotiation on the on the Iranian side we have never had concrete proposals we have we have heard

public announcements and still recently but these public announcements have been either not followed by any concrete proposal or actually had been denied discreetly afterwards so again we have

not succeeded to enter into a negotiation on our terms or in their terms and I really want to repeat 44 because what what should be obvious to to all of us our our only goal is to

open a negotiation and to reach an agreement this crisis is too serious and I’ll come to to it I’ll come to it point five hour our approach since the beginning has been called the dual-track

approach on one track you try to open the negotiation and on the other track if you don’t succeed to open a negotiation to put you put a pressure on the other side and it is the sanctions

as i have said three resolutions of sanctions have been voted by the Security Council into from 2006 to 2008 the sanctions are not an end in themselves their goal is to convince

Iran to enter into a genuine negotiation on measures are repeat myself to restore confidence in the civilian nature of their program nothing more nothing else nothing less and when I said nothing

more of course I really it the message behind it is we are not in the regime change game we are here we are ending the civilian the nuclear issue there is no hidden agenda but the wheel to

respond adequately to the concerns of the international community 66 a failure not a failure to reach a diplomatic solution that we have been striving for will be extremely

serious extremely serious first the future of the non-proliferation treaty npt and Beyond of the non-proliferation system is at stake because the military nuclearization of of your arm or as a

reality or even as a potential threat you know really even as a potential threat we lead other neighboring countries to consider that their security depends on their following the

same path you know we I think there are two main proliferation crisis when I was a student in the 70s I was taught in two thousand there will be 15 nuclear powers 15 and I was the least Argentina Brazil

South Africa and actually we have succeeded to keep large early the genius in the bottle and today there are two nuclear crisis North Korea and Anira North Korea the crisis is managed by by

the neighbor by the neighbors the six-party towards you know followed by Russia China South Korea Japan you know these countries are trying to solve the problem for negotiation but what is

striking is that even if North Korea actually as easily clear power it doesn’t mean that note that South Korea Japan have declared the day afterwards okay since they have the bomb we are

going to at the bottom so that in a sense the crisis is delimited in the Middle East it’s quite different in the Middle East nobody could say what will be the incentive for for the neighbors

for the neighbors considering that there they can consider that their security is at stake that the region is very fragile and very very unstable and of course beyond the region once the genius is out

of the bottle other countries will feel obliged for security or status reasons to follow each will be the end the non-proliferation treaty second point of course and that i should say

very easy the Middle East is a fragile region the inflammatory decorations that we have heard in Tehran have of course raised genuine concerns some even fears elsewhere a military confrontation

couldn’t be excluded would the diplomatic effort fail we do want to avoid this disaster it’s it’s very easy to imagine what could be the consequences in this region of a

military confrontation so I’m going to to conclude to conclude here I’ve tried to give you in a sense the logic of our of our common effort you know we have been working together the free Europeans

China Russia and the US and I think it’s a remarkable our basketball factor of course there are nuances between the six countries about there are nuances there are also nuances between the free

Europeans there are nuances between Europeans and the Americans between the and so on you know because we have different interests different geography it’s totally normal I think what is

uniting us and and that’s the fundamental what is uniting us is the conviction that year we have a concern and here we have to address it and and I guess that I’m sure actually this

concern this common concern is still there and the commonweal of the six countries is is to work its work together after all on the substance of the sanctions on the timing of the

sanctions since 2006 actually since 2003 we have had discussions we have had these agreements we have a dissertation doubts but I can testify because I’ve negotiated three resolutions of

sanctions that at the end of the day after long hours and nights and grueling process of reconciliation between the different different conceptions I think we have always

the six countries which means the p5 the five permanent members plus Germany it’s another way of presenting the six the p5 plus Germany we have always reached an agreement and and an agreement because

we all share the same concern and as I’ve said other countries run this group are really sharing the concern and want like us that we reach a diplomatic diplomatic solution to a very serious

crisis thank you thank you very much mr. ambassador a very diplomatic presentation as we would have expected so I want to spend a few minutes pressing you perhaps a little a little

different fashion and I’ll try and make this brief enough that starting in about 15 minutes we will have a general question and answer session in remarks that you made on January 28 which I

think was three days before you took up your chairmanship of Security Council you made some interesting points one of them was that in order to think of deterrence as a model for the future of

Iranian nuclear relations one had to assume that of the parties that are in potential conflict are reasonable parties and you observed that the comments of mr. Ahmadinejad did not fit

that definition of reasonable and yet I recall vividly as a teenager Nikita Khrushchev saying we will bury you and Americans taking that as a literal threat of nuclear

annihilation in the way that some people in Israel and some friends of israel take president Ahmadinejad’s comments about Israel as being literally promising or threatening a nuclear

annihilation seven years later Khrushchev back down from that in 1963 but for years that phrase we will bury you was brought up again and again and again to show the unreasonableness at

the other side and yet deterrence succeeded during that period and then at another point in the same session you remarked when you were talking about the threat of a nuclear Iran to the Arab

countries you said that in fact Iran may be more of a threat to the Arab countries of the Gulf than to Israel and so it raises the question in my mind as to how you evaluate the Israeli

understanding of Iran’s program as constituting an existential threat to Israel or differently put whether you feel that Iran’s the Iranian nuclear program that reached a weapon or

threshold stage is more a regional threat than a particular threat to one particular country thank you I think it’s it’s a good heavy does that to diplomats should never make decoration

to actually it’s no the question of data rhymes the first you don’t answer to the of course to the question again if military nuclearization of your arm or

even as I said reality or the potential threat as I’ve said first each will eat food it will lead a lot of countries to follow the path in any case in the case of Israel decay there is a question mark

of well why not to have a deterrence which means to go by that the NPT is dead which is already a victim that deserves some consideration after that you have the case of Israel you could

consider that why not a deterrence simply a balance of deterrence between a nuclear design we can suppose that it’s a nuclear power and a Iran if Iran becomes a nuclear nuclear power the

prime of deterrence again and is based on the assumption by the leadership of the two sites that the other side is following the same logic the same rationality and again here of course I’m

not in the in the brain and of of the asylum leaders simply I know Israel and I know the story of the Jewish people and when somebody says that it will believe that these countries should be

to disappear from the map from the map if you don’t say that you want to destroy say that you think that is I should disappear from the map I think it it’s feeling so it’s fitting some gut

feeling among the among the asylums so I simply said that the question ears on these bases will the Israelis accept the logic of deterrence with with this leadership and I think it’s a big I

guess it’s a big question mark I don’t have the answer but i think it’s a it’s a big question mark you know really it’s a because what you were referring to the public discourse the prime is also the

nuclear deterrence and it’s very difficult to understand but it’s really managed by him sense by by the leadership and it’s a sort of eye to eye face to face reality between the Soviet

and the Americans it was the case and in a sense never the other side as as believed that aside as believe that the other side was was going to whisk the total destruction of its own country so

will it be possible to have the same balance between between Israel and Iran I don’t have the answer by definition really simply I again I I’ve lived in instyle six years of my life I my doubt

that the Israelis we take the risk but that’s that’s an open question that I think that’s opinion that everybody can have is own opinion a country which which the second question a country

which has a nuclear deterrent in a sense nuclear deterrence being either you have the bomb or or you are close to the threshold of the bomb or you are suspected to have the bomb in a sense

feels protected you know really feels protected and it leads to a real imbalance in the security in the security in the part of the world you know really you have a country suddenly

in in in the Gulf countries where already you have a powerful country of 70 millions of inhabitants in front of Earth countries which are less populous there is already a sort of

question which is there about the security you know and when introducing the nuclear deterrence factor it increases this this ? especially because you can deterrence is also deterrents

nuclear deterrence is also active against conventional it’s a way of balancing the conventional superiority of your adversary so it means that with nuclear deterrence the country can deter

from instance the US you know they can share the u.s. from intervening in conventional conventional terms because the risk would be will be so so so be I I was we were discussing it in this in

the stairs I give the example of of India Pakistan in a really Pakistan innocence was already always deter by the convention of superiority of India you know because India was obviously

superior in conventional terms while becoming a nuclear power you know it has a factor of establishing a military strategy balance between the two countries so again it’s a veteran sister

logic which is apparently logic you can consider it’s also a bit crazy the problem is that is something very fragile which is based on assumptions on both sides and the question is that

these assumptions are the result of years and years of discussions of face to face and the question and I don’t have the answer again is will it be possible to have this logic of

deterrence in the in the Middle East a region which is so unstable and so fragile we don’t want to run the risk simply we don’t want to run do is we don’t want to have not only the NPT

there also the sort of that on the stability of the Middle East that’s a reason why we want a diplomatic solution my second question of starts from the observation

that the nuclear issue with Iran is probably the most serious crisis that the United States has experienced with Iran since the hostage crisis in so far as presidents have become personally

involved and expectations have been raised and so forth and so on in the hostage crisis there were severe sanctions Iran was suffering eventually suffering from war but before the war

broke out you had severe sanctions and it was not clear why the hostages were not we’re not released why there was no negotiation some people observed that during the period the hostages were held

Iran had a referendum to approve a constitution it elected a president an elected to Parliament and then about one week after the part of the one was elected it got in touch with the US and

said now it’s time to to deal the hostage crisis in other words the internal politics of the country seemed to take priority over the over the foreign policy you know stalemate the

question is whether the nuclear issue in Iran is one that any Iranian can resolve or whether there are internal issues in Iran that make it difficult if not impossible for a single Iranian figure

to make the tough decision and go public with terminating the program and if that is possibly the case how does one appraise the internal situation in Iran with respect to the to

the challenge of your security council is facing up again we don’t want to to to terminate the Iranian nuclear program you simply want to define measures for monitoring this is for ram we are not in

the game of domestic politics in Iran we are not in the game of domestic politics we are first I think because we are diplomats and foreign we are in foreign relations we are coping our relationship

with is with the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran there there is a political activities in Iran we are we are following it of course but we really we are not we are not playing on this

game playing these games our conviction is that this nuclear program has existed for 20 years so in a sense it has been endorsed by a lot of different members of the union leadership so we could

consider that it’s not a question of one wing or another wing you know really it’s it has to be a decision of Iran you know to consider that you know every policy is based on profit and and and

cost that’s the really the prophet of of a negotiation is is more important that the cost of the confrontation with the International International commune okay thank you very much my third and

final question arises from the comments you made in your opening statement where you said and I think this is a correct quotation that the the goal of the Security Council or of the the the six

is quote the restoration of international competence in the civilian nature of the nuclear program the word restoration prompts the question as to whether the origin of the Iranian

nuclear program was civilian in nature and if then either acquired a military aspect or it could acquire military aspect after all the Shah of Iran himself had called for a civilian

nuclear program of a very substantial scale before the Revolution so when you say restoring international confidence how would that be done what sort of thing could the Iranians publicly commit

to that would in your view be convincing to the international community that civilian that the civilian nature of the program has been restored no first restoration because Iran has had nuclear

act nuclear activities for a long time and there are pretty legitimate as I’ve said beyond this program for for medical reasons for instance of research or

research there was this discovery in 2002 of a clandestine program and so that was a sort of a shock for all the international community especially because there is this question of

enrichment Iran is enriching uranium and nobody knows what what is the use of this enrich uranium since Iran doesn’t have nuclear power plant it’s like if you buy gas before buying a car it

doesn’t make a lot of sense in in financial and in technical terms as for the measures which could be taken again that would be the result of a negotiation let’s discuss with our

Iranian counterparts you know really and let’s open the negotiation I can’t tell I can say what would be the result of the negotiation I guess that on one side people will ask some very strong

measures on the other side there will be reluctance and at the end of the day there will be a compromise and we will again as I’ve said we want to discuss we want to discuss what could be these

measures of course their ideas floating around in terms for instance the Additional Protocol order because it’s very technical so there is the Additional Protocol of the International

Agency of atomic energy you know which has been suspended by the iranian parliament so we would want to as it restored and implement it you can also discuss specific measures of

monitoring off of control you know there is there is a I think place there is room for 444 foreign compromise you know the fact that the Russians and the Chinese I think went to Tehran as you

can guess that we are ready to find a compromise in the sense as I’ve said are nuances among the six it’s not it’s not a mystery and you can guess where we’re more less on the range of positions

where hard where are the six and actually the Russians of the Chinese again they didn’t reach any result on these only cos on this you know so that’s I guess good evidence that first

there is a sense of compromise on our side secondly simply the negotiation has not started thank you very much I’m now going to open the floor to questions if you have a question please go to the

microphone at the center of the room and form a line I’m going to take three questions and then allow the Ambassador to respond and then three more and give them a chance to respond so that we

don’t you know get Machine get constipated on this issue and I urge you to make your questions clear and succinct and refrain from from making speechless all right yes sir your first

stomach Republic is not the same as was year ago can you please introduce yourself yeah I say stomach Republic he’s not the same as it was she would like God would she like you to identify

yourself but I’m a new chef Emmalee why I live in New York Islamic Republic is not the same as what year ago it has lost legitimacy and so internal politics you said you are diplomat you are not

interested in internal pal to give Iran but why not you are negotiating with whom you’re going to negotiate and the ypres government is not legitimate so what’s the what it means for the

negotiation and secondly that the other question my second question this is true in relation to Pakistan if the Pakistan deterrent was the patter was India but if the government fails aren’t you

worried about the Pakistan thank you by the way when I said take three questions my li what I meant was one question from three different speakers that each person being invited to to have multiple

questions but please yes Cory to help my name is Miriam I just like to know you said they don’t want to start negotiation neither your terms either your their terms I like to know more

about these terms what is their term that you that we said we want to start negotiation but they don’t want whatever terms you didn’t explain those terms neither yours nor dares thank you thank

you we actually have three questions at this point so perhaps know what I was seeing of course we are not we are not that stupid and which means that we are

interested by analysis of the International internal situation of your on when you are negotiating I’m sure that your engines are interested by internal situation of the United States

for instance of course you know really so we try to understand which works and where where it will go and where we’re out the the the decision-making process for f words you know really we have

tried what I’ve said is in a sense is a year talking in official terms to send a very very strong message that we are not here I have said already for regime change well not when I say it’s not we

are not interested bye what is happening but simply we are not going to play on that you know it’s a different it’s a different issue the question of the HTML see that’s your or your opinion there is

we are facing a government which is a government of Islamic Republic of Iran you know and that’s the only counterpart that we have and I don’t see two two wells we could talk Pakistan it’s not

the topic of our discussion tonight so the terms the terms when I’ve said on our terms on their terms I would say if their way of terms on their terms we were really at least discussed their

terms they have never offered terms of a negotiation the other Elliot’s never never you know really it’s really repeating that your Iran has inalienable rights to to civilian nuclear energy and

about nobody can defy the run from its energy of all rights and so on but but basically nothing really nothing else no answer to our proposal our terms I think as I’ve said in 2006 and after

that we have refined and complete we have refined and enlarge it in 2008 we have the six ministers and the six countries and the second time it was actually signed by the six ministers

including Secretary Rice Condoleezza Rice we were said to the Iranians if the nuclear issue is solved we are offering you you know full integration into the international community and as you know

for the moment beyond the sanctions on linked to this issue Iran is submitted to some sanctions for instance US sanctions as you know there are strong US sanctions against Iraq so there was

an offer for instance the Orion subproblems to buy spare parts for the aircraft’s because they are American oh and they they are not allowed to do it US

sanctions so what we were offering was to say to the uranians we are ready to cooperate with you on a lot of different issues I said agricultural civilian you know finance security we are ready to

take you as a legitimate normal member of the international community and and and there was under this framework his contacts there was the nuclear issue we were again provided actually provided

that we could reach an agreement on on the declaration that was our Terms and and again it was open terms because when I have not answered to the question about what measures we could ask the

uranians it was not only a diplomatic way out it was simply because it has to be the result of a negotiation you know really that’s that’s the work of the diplomats you know to reach a compromise

I can’t forecast what will be the result of a negotiation so so there was if we had reach a compromise with the Iranians there was beyond solving the problem there was the the prospect of the

reintegration of Iran into the international community it was our political terms as for the detailed terms as I have said they have never asked us what where the detail the

detailed terms so we couldn’t even as I’ve said start start a negotiation hi my name is Erica I’m a PhD student in the political science department here you’ve spoken a lot about how different

states in the region might react to an Iranian and open Iranian nuclear weapons program specifically that we might expect to see proliferation so I’m just curious what you think if that does

occur what the international community could do about it practically given that sanctions haven’t really worked sorry so like what you know practical diplomatic moves are there if Iran does openly go

nuclear mr. ambassador could you speak about some of the politics surrounding um oil and gas especially with Russia China and Iran first if again the first question as I’ve said you know really I

diplomacy is not I think hard science and it’s it’s not either reading in the crystal ball and as I’ve said there is first there is the risk of a military confrontation you know really we don’t

know whether countries will accept this prospect really and it’s useless to say that it will be a major disaster in this part of the world in any part of the world but especially in this part of the

world secondly as i have said also the risk is that simply the collapse of the non-proliferation treaty and and you know again in the 70s it was already a risk now it would be much in a sense

it’s mo it will be much more dangerous because in a sense it’s much easier now to get a ball getting the bomb is not is more is cheaper and easier that it was in the 70s so each i think it will

really really and tail at the end of our the non-proliferation don’t profession tricky so what what to do why I don’t know what will we do I really don’t know

you know I think very often the diplomats are described as as as cynical a diplomat is in charge of the national interest of this country and the national interest of the country

whatever is this country are many fold and some of them are economic financial and a legitimate you know really the jobs of our in our in our work of our you know in our factories there are a

legitimate interest so when you are facing such an issue you have to take into account all the interest and when we were negotiating when when I was negotiating the sanctions the resolution

of sanctions first I had to negotiate with my Treasury because of course it has consequences on on the French trade the the EU trade with Iran has decreased by thirty percent in 2008 I think or

seven so it has consequences well its financial consequences and the different countries are exposed to disc reskin different manners you know because first their trade is is is as different for

you know for instance one of European countries as more medium and short size cooperations so it means that if these corporations are losing it a deal it’s much more painful than if it is a large

cooperation so it’s it’s obvious that the first country will be may be more sensitive more assitant it does not mean that is cynical or injury but it always really is it different it depends also

on your energy your energy dependence you know some countries simply for historical reasons or some reasons don’t import oil from your arm the US you know really why other countries are 14.5

no one so of course the the one the some countries are again more or less sensitive so it’s obvious that between as I’ve said between the six countries you have different interest which means

that you have also nuanced approach to these new sanctions some country for instance the sanctions are more more actually targeting the train but it means targeting the trade means the

state sponsorship of the trail you know we we give you know with we don’t prevent trade but simply we say that we what is prevented is for instance state assurance for you know Willie’s and

among the countries some of them are more as the state as more importance than other countries which means that when you you prevent for instance assurance reassurance of trade by estate

in some countries the steak is very active all the countries the state is not active so it has different consequences so you know so it’s very complicated and and again I want to go

beyond the Orion example you are always in my job you have always to face and and part of my job is to understand the other side to say if if such a search it doesn’t agree with me it’s not because

it is bad and that good settlement area but also maybe because it is his interests are different so that’s the case obviously that’s the case some countries are more dependent on Iranian

oil than other countries which is not the case of Russia which is not dependent at all on no but we’ve arshad there is also the prime of the geographic proximity so you

know yet there is another element which means which can lead to some difference of approach differential approach the United States they are very far there are no financial economic relationship

whatsoever if you are not limited to really very small interest so do the Americans in the sense are much more prone to strong sanctions because in a sense strong sanctions actually cost to

the you across nothing to the US and as a French modest was saying in the 17th century you’re always ready to accept the sacrifice of your neighbor that’s also reality that are really that

reality and in considering also the economy situation you know jobs are of some interest are important I things like that as the president of the French Republic has repeatedly said my country

is in favor of of strong sanctions mr. ambassador I’m oh so very academic student here at CPAP doing a master’s in international fest I’d like to ask you a very very simple question very very

naive perhaps but certainly the question that any or the majority of citizens of the Middle East would ask if when when confronting this issue concerning the the Iranian nuclear question and that is

the they would immediately think of the the Western double standards relating to to Israel possessing that the the the bomb the nuclear capacity do you not think that the the moral superiority of

the powers that are trying to negotiate with Iran is it’s lost because of fact of not addressing that that issue first certainly that’s the position of the the muck that your average middle eastern

citizen including me they read much with many of their ends themselves I presume thank you I’m surprised by this question Thank You ambassador you’re alluding to China earlier and I was just wondering

are there any thoughts being developed about a plan B in the event that china is not able to be on board for these new round of sanctions other other ideas being developed or not but first on you

soil you know really I to prepare the answer to the question because I knew that sooner or later it will come first I think if you ran as in conditions if Iran has nuclear ambitions and we want

to be reassured about it I I insist on this point these ambitions have nothing to do with this I’ll you know really raising the raising Israel in this in this factor in this crisis is a

political argument frankly which is used like in other issues in the risk region to hide the real issue I first the Iranian nuclear program I started with the shop at the time of the Shah you

know Iran was a close ally and and the clothes in the close friend of Israel after that it has been relaunched after the war with Iraq in a 98 88 1988 because Iran has been targeted by

chemical weapons chemical weapons which were sent by by Iraq so again yah yes i’ll add nothing to do nothing I you can identify as the source of the the Iranian nuclear program after that it’s

very useful because you it has always a big a big effect in the public opinion two ways to wait but frankly it’s more it’s a smoke screen you know really for the Iranian program Iran is not engaged

into a nuclear program because of Israel it has nothing to its good as we same Frenchy to both Gail to use it but it’s a political party political argument but to go further

first again as I’ve said I’m I’m defending the interest of my country as I’ve said one of the first interest I identify is the maintenance of the npg and on the non-proliferation regime and

so far again I’m not aware that that Israel which has not signed the entity as violated its obligation or in any way contributed to proliferation you know really i don’t see but maybe I’m right

but I have not have not seen and the fact that your heart that Israelis may be a nuclear power so far as not led to undermining the the NPT while I do think that in Iran which had signed the NPT if

you ran was violating the mpg it will be an important and negative element I think say that I’m not good I don’t want to dismiss your your question or your your concern which i think you perfectly

right to say that it’s it’s a common concern among in the men in the street in the middle east and again i think it goes beyond the the nuclear issue with Anya nuclear issues it going also in

other issues and especially the hub the israeli-palestinian conflict but having say that we do support with the French we do support wmv3 zone in the Middle East a WMD free zone in the Middle East

and I think it has been accepted by most of the countries or all the countries of the region and we should we should work on it and maybe the NPT review conference would be could be a step into

this direction but WMD it’s not only nuclear it’s WMD which means also chemical weapons and biological weapons and a lot of countries and not only Israel actually a lot of countries in

the region have not signed the convention on on chemical weapons and and also the convention on biological weapons and as you know deterrence is nuclear nuclear but for some people

countries it’s also nuclear versus chemical or nuclear versus biological so I think in a sense in first as a good balanced in first first part i dismissed your question in the second part I I I

joined you by saying that I think that after we have solved this question I think we should move forward to work on the WMD 33 zone hello mr. um ambassador my name is and Reyna Flores from Radio

friends international and you said in your opening statement that the Security Council had decided in the past to apply sanctions to Iran but you said as well and that if discussion is not working

then you have to make more pressure so my question is what have been exactly the sanctions to Iran the previous sanction to Aaron and what would be the sanctions this year I mean how are you

planning to increase the pressure if that’s the case and secondly if you allow me on the first minister of friends and Francois feel has declared that your country would ask firmly to

apply sanctions to Iran and my question is are you presenting this proposal to the Security Council these days thank you first I think there was a question of China you know really and we are not

on the we are not yet or we are not actually in in thinking of a plan B I think it’s crucial it’s essential for the legitimacy of what we are of which we are doing it’s totally essential to

work chain even if it means waiting a bit even if it means you know really we really need needed China I think I insist you know the legitimacy of what

we are trying i think is really largely based on the fact that the p5 we are united that china or shine we are and and the free Western powers of the Security Council we are we are united so

for its not only for the moment but I think it’s I wouldn’t consider you know really in a sense dunking or China you know really I wouldn’t consider as a viable as a valuable solution on the

sanctions I you know they are public I’m not going to make the least they are a resolution 1737 1747 1803 reaffirmed by resolution 1835 so you look at the the UN the UN site and you have you had the

resolutions are about sanctions as I’ve said I’m not going to discuss the news so it means that my authorities are said publicly that we want to have sanctions significant sanctions but I’m not going

to discuss what what sort of sanctions we are indeed proposing thank you very much my name is Ali from mission of Iran my name the nature of my intervention rather than questioning

raising question is commenting on some of the points that ambassador rice the drink is introductory remarks and actually an answer session in fact lots of points raised by ambassador are

subject to denial discussion and counter controversy but I don’t want to get into details I just want to answer to some of the points that ambassador race in fact the Ambassador you mischaracterize that

misrepresented some of the realities underground and what happened what what has happened since 2003 for example it was stated that a negotiation did not started really and that is not the case

I think and we and the three European countries Iran and three European countries negotiated for two years in half why you want suspended its enrichment activity which is it’s right

under the NPT but at the end but at the end because of the insistence of the European part and that was originated by the objection of the United States you came up with a proposal that denied the

Iran’s right to enrichment so we had negotiations we were prepared to have limited enrichment at that time but you denied the right to enrichment and you said that’s the concrete objective if to

a non diversion and the second point that you missed in presentation i think is too to refer to the reports of the IAEA the reports of diarrhea are very clear that

in a setting that Iran has known as no diversion to prohibited activities and we are in full compliance with the NPT so the concern is not the concern of international community the concern is

the concern of some Western countries which have the veto power in the Security Council and the Security Council is not representing the international community that’s why

international community is insisting on reforming the Security Council and the last point I don’t want to dispute all of the points that you raised I think we should have keep in mind that Iran is

not seeking nuclear weapons but Iran insists on its right to nuclear technology and if we start with two principles if we accept two principles we can reach a final solution the first

principle is that Iran has the right to nuclear technology and the second is that Iran should not have nuclear weapons I think that our counterpart are negotiating counterparts in the 5+1

group should show seriousness about addressing rather than rather than dismissing enrichment right that the one is entitled under the NPT with that principles I think we can we can find

that we can find an exit to this issue which we believe is solvable and due to a dogmatic insistence by Western countries we have not been able to to result thank you very much thank thank

you first i think i’m not going to enter in poly me it’s not Western again since as you know among the six there is Russia and China and thats for sure in China I’ve tried to reach a confirm

negotiate a compromise with Iran and even succeed it’s not Westar that’s a very point as for the reports of the International Agency for atomic energy here we disagree the International

Agency as repeatedly said that Iran is not answering two questions about alleged studies on military on military military topics you know and the board of governors of the International Agency

has voted to resolutions on on this issue expressing its concerns i think that the reports of the agency are certainly online and you can you can look at it you can look at it and you

can look at the last part i can even advise you to go to the last paragraph of the resolutions of the agency and i saw the two principles we do agree with these two principles but these two

principles were in the letter of the three ministry of other ministers in 2003 and since then four five six years six years we have not succeeded 22 to open the negotiation so I guess maybe

it’s more complicated it’s more complicated but I think there is a wheel of finding god forbid or finding a diplomatic solution mr. ambassador this week there was an article published in

the national interest by an American political scientist who asserted that we would not see a new round of sanctions against Iran because certain members of the Security Council namely Russia and

China had strategic interests in seeing a nuclear Iran come to bear a nuclear weapons holding Iran and those strategic and dress are allegedly the fact that a nuclear Iran would constrain US military

action in the Middle East can you comment on this suggestion no it’s not a friendship I matter who can discuss intellectuals realize we accept their their imagination now the factories or

show in China as I’ve said our part of active part of our goods they are voted five resolution or 6 i’m always loss meant now it’s five resolutions against you on three of them with with sanctions

so i guess there is no reason to doubt or that they don’t want to have it will be 2 again to destabilizing you know really it will be much too destabilizing in the in the in the region and in the

world the end of the non-proliferation you know as for the nuclear military nuclear energy you can also argue that you know they have don’t want to to to want to remain a ghost club so there are

five countries official nuclear powers plus two out of the club and one and other so they don’t want to had one country more because it hurts a lot of

uncertainties to the to the strategic balance in a sense you know Johannes closer to Russia than it is to the US so I really thought I really think it’s a bit far-fetched and it doesn’t fit the

reality of the Chinese and Russian the Russian diplomatic activities there is a point that you I want to join our Iranian friend is we want we do want the reform of the Security Council I think

president sarkozy has repeatedly said that we need to have a Security Council which is representative of the new the new reality security consider is the reflection of 1945 if we want to keep

the effectiveness of the council we have to enlarge it to the emerging powers so with UK we have made several proposals to try to move forward the process which is a voting process because in the UN I

think everybody tries to prevent its neighbor to join the Security Council which makes a lot of a lot of square holes but we do want to be formed if you’ll print me a second question on the

issue of reform at the UN what positive lessons do you think we can draw from the Iranian example that we can possibly bring to bear this spring at the NPT review or in reforming the IAEA in the

future to help prevent cases like this no I i do think first the fact of having worked with weave you know the US Russia and China in a sense is the positive element and it’s

showing that we are going again with all the nuances the different interests and also some mistrust you know we we are under the shadow of the Iraqi crisis you know really so there is there was

especially especially last year or you know some in some circles especially Moscow the idea of saying well the Americans are asking for for sanctions but actually they want to use it to to

bomb to go to war so there was a sort of lack of trust me stress so it was not easy to overcome his mistress and to arrive to to comment attitude of the five and i think that’s that’s

unimportant that’s an important element the world has changed and that’s the reason why i’m not sure that for OSHA and China their priority is to undermine the strategic balance at the expense of

the of the u.s. so that’s the really certainly on the non-proliferation regime we are first you know it has not started with with Iran it has started you know with all the activities of of

North Korea you know North Korea is the ikea of polish eration you know really you go there and you can buy whatever you want you know really you can find Korean you know Koreans everywhere you

know really I’m not going to give names of countries that that’s the case so that’s reason why and it was a u.s. initiative that we have supported actively we have had a resolution at the

Security Council with under the presidency of of President Obama himself in September resolution 1887 to combat proliferation as I’m said it’s very it’s much easier you can you can in a sense

you can buy elements of a bomb and everything Keith you know really we discovered it in 2003 when Libya suddenly decided so suddenly decided to become to become

knives and revealed the extension of this program and we were all amazed actually Libya had nearly about you know as you know all the elements of a nuclear military for a while maybe has

given up as given up this this program but for us it has been also awaking waking up call we have had so poor information has become certainly and again I go well beyond Iranian crisis

even if it’s linked because there are some sources of technology which are coming you know you have had the a you can pakistan you know network of proliferation you have the activities of

of north korea which is exporting what if ur technologies but also in size everywhere basically to everybody you can pay so it has led to a lot of insistent on this on this on this issue

of proliferation all the regime of control of exports at the title are much much more much more effective but it has of course it’s also leading to other questions for the future and one of the

big question is enrichment enrichment of uranium you know because enrichment is a really important rated proliferating activity so there are a lot of different proposals one of them russian in a sense

of giving countries you know because you don’t an arrangement for instance south korea as a teen power plants south korea doesn’t enrich uranium because you can buy uranium on the market enrich uranium

on the market it’s cheap and actually you know really so there there is no need to in financial economic terms it doesn’t make sense to enrich uranium before you have between 10 and 12

nuclear grams so there is the question of enrichment which is 4418 so how can we control this activity which is not easy because some countries are seeing that

as a way of restricting the excess legitimate access to solve some technology but there are Russian proposals and other proposals to offer enrich uranium facilities under

international control to other sort of you know the International Agency for atomic energy monitoring a sort of international facility for enrichment so which could give guarantee to countries

with which one to have nuclear energy that they have access to to access to fuel and reach and reach few there is also a new insistence on nuclear disarmament and especially after the

speech of President Obama on the under on the world without nuclear weapons so again there are a lot of questions especially because in the world in the globalized world everything technologies

people people and also materials circulate of course much more much more easy and again the technology of the nuclear weapons which was maybe very taken very difficult in the 40s or 50s

for most of the countries now it’s within reach of most of the countries so that’s that’s the i guess the concerns we have and and a lot a lot of things are done and i’ll done by everybody i I

think by a sort of consensus among the international community with the exception that countries are really committed are really attached to the idea that they they are right and we

shouldn’t deny them they’re their heights to fit the ambassador’s schedule we’re going to have to make the next question the final question congratulations oh thank you so

much Dennis I’m a grad student here at Columbia and well I guess one of the central arguments made by the the Iranians and North Koreans is that if India can detonate and test a nuclear

weapon and then after many years be declared an official and nuclear power nuclear state as well as Pakistan afterwards and then if Britain France the United States they can all test

nuclear weapons before and they’re now all officially recognized as nuclear States within the international community so why can’t the Iranians and North Koreans well because they’ve

signed the NPG the app sign to the NPT the non-proliferation treaty is based on on a deal the deal was in a sense to close the club into the five-year five nuclear powers but in exchange in the

sense in exchange the nuclear powers were providing nuclear technology free and access to nuclear technology for nuclear civilian for use of for civilian use of nuclear energy so that’s the deal

of the NPT again you can consider this deal is is not balanced nobody has ever said that life is a fair place but that that’s the deal of the NPT and India has not signed when pitching so India has

not violated any its obligations while North Korea and Iran have signed NP I know that at your at your age you can consider that signing or not signing your way to detail you’re not really but

again that’s that’s really a sort of legalistic nicety of really offer of a diplomat you know really which is as you know basically relevant to the real life the diplomat actually the international

community the international life is based on the sort of agreement Tweety’s we try to organize the international life if you go out of the system if you break your if you break your commitment

that that’s that’s that’s a crisis you enter into a crisis because you as I’ve said you undermine all all the system in a sense this entity system as you you can emphasize is not balances it’s a bit

weird it’s a bit strange and which means that it’s very fragile and if somebody starts by saying that the emperor has no clothes it means that suddenly saying why why we should accept it means that

the system is perhaps the system is his pattern of collapsing the question if if Iran violates its obligation if I’m not saying that it does but if it were violates its obligation there will be no

reason for other countries not to do it so it’s the end at the end of of the NPT and again we are not rejoicing that enjoying Pakistan of you know tested a nuclear weapon but the fact is that not

signed they are not signed the nuclear the nuclear doing pitching and secondly which is very important and which is not the case of North Korea especially for India India as being has never been

associated with any proliferation proliferating activities because it’s a it’s a fact you have the nuclear technology it’s another fact to sell it and India has not had any foraging

activity Israel has not have AG proliferating activity with Pakistan you have the problem of the aq can Network so now apparently it is HS and under control so thank you very much 22 up

being patient listen to me thank you very much ambassador alcohol thank you again ambassador haha I’m PF of the school of internal public affairs thank you as well to Professor bill yet and

thank you all for coming tonight