french briefing

8/7/2019 French briefing

1/5

French briefing (Monday)

Moving to plenary from committees

Procedure as temptation to delete things too difficult for one country

or another; Expects a weak but balanced deal with Middle East issuekey.

Eight remaining difficulties:

1. middle east resolution is key issue which could block the

conference;

2. CTBT

3. Legally binding on negative security actions; nuclear weaponsstate not using them against non nuclear weapons countries;

some countries want legally binding instrument, whateverhappens, we shall not use nukes against a non weaponsstate providing it is compliant with npt. The five, at least four

of them are not going to accept it. (china has said nothing)Nam pushing for it, 118 members but 116 at conference

(India and Pakistan).

4. Time line timetable for disarmament; nuclear weapon states

must do that in a specific time; Russia says no, others agree

5. Moratorium on nuclear tests and nuclear enrichment; China

against, the other p4 say okay;

6. additional protocol, many countries , 2/3 would like to have itbecome the new norm; allows agency to go wherever they

want otherwise they can only inspect facilities designated by

government; 5 and eu and many western developed countriesand difficult for nam.

7. Modernization of weapons; the question is whether this iscontrary to article VI on disarmament. Almost solved cause of

language in ctbt treaty preamble.

. 8. Consequences of withdrawing from the treaty, which is their

right as N Korea did; should it be linked with sc and sanctions?

Q and a

On Middle East there are two issues: the first is about the conference

in 2012. And the second is the context of the conference and how it isdescribed. Difficult to solve at this point.


2/5

Final document will be weak because it will be the only way to have afinal document. Only way to remove the difficulties.

P5 vs Nam; Final deal will be between them, what is acceptable in

terms of disarmament, non prolif and peaceful uses;

Middle East resolution: the idea now is to have everybody on board

but if you want to have everyone on board, you must not have anypreconditions; one is link with peace process and Arab countries say

no while Israelis would like that;

Mandate of conference? Some say 1995 resolution implementation;

others say many issues and that a nuclear free zone will be result,some day; if you put some preconditions it will not fly but it is difficult

to remove them; some say we have to come back to our capitals with

something if text is too weak.

Should countries be named in ME resolution? two problems, arabcountries want israel named as non npt state, which is factual; on the

other side, some countries would like something about non compliancere Iran, saying it has to comply; if you do that, Iran will not attend.

You name both countries but you dont have a conference or you think

conference is feasible and then you have to make the concession thatno one will be named.

Everybody it agrees it will take one or two years to prepare the

conference. Israel, India, Pakistan named in another part of finaldocument; Kellys text refers to paragraph VII; chapeau is veryimportant. We want to have something so that all the countries feel

comfortable to come and sit around the table. If not, they will notcome. It is so fragile, so difficult.

Some countries want a UN conference but this will not fly. Danonprefers that one country invites the others; such small points end up

being symbolic on sensitive issue. ;

Kelly draft: it is a good basis; you have a chapeau, it is well balanced,para 7, we can work on that;

P5 compared notes and on the same line, amendments will be similar;

Syria and Iran? Israel not part of npt (that is factual) and some wantto say (Syria) that Israel is a threat to the region. That wont fly. Syria

is the tough guy. Iran also having problems.


3/5

Changes by P-5; want to delete initial conference because

conference itself should decide on follow up.

Egypt playing key role to reach compromise: Mageds work is

extraordinary to pull together views of Arab nations; some think aweaker text against Israel may be a trap because conference wont

happen anyway; others say for first time there is something aboutimplementation and we have to try; in five years we can say it failed.

If 185 countries agree, there will be a conference. The idea is not to

have a one off conference but the conference itself has to decide itsnext meeting. (It will never be a one off meeting)

Withdrawal clause: nothing in treaty. Idea is that S Council has to deal

with the country that withdrew. If we consider the npt as the key

treaty for peace and security, withdrawal is an attack against peaceand security; others say Council should not interfere if the country, a

peaceful and quiet one, wants to withdraw. Some countries say nounless the country begins enrichment. Others say the fact you

withdraw is enough for S Council to impose sanctions. The fact thatone country gets out is a threat because others can do the same; it

sets an example, precedent. If they do not find a compromise, they

will put it off to the prepcon in two years.

India and Pakistan?

There will be a call, a mantra, to have them join but no one believesthey will. A lot of debates around the world on US-India energy deal.Some say this is a breach of the non proliferation regime. Even if only

for civilian purposes, India then has more financial resources to beefup its military sector; the other argument is that India and Pakistan

are not going to join the NPT so we are going to try to put them in a

cooperative system with obligations, the same ones as NPT countries,without being in the npt. The agreement with India means the IAEA

can come and inspect. That is better than doing nothing. Also thereare demands India has to sign and ratify the CBT which it has not

done.

But it sets a precedent so why not Iran? It is more difficult to be in the

NPT and then leave than never to be in it at all. Text has said countriesshould refrain from cooperation with non NPT countries

And Pakistan? Pakistan does not want any inspection of any kind. It

has never said that if it was part of the deal with Chinait would


4/5

accept. And it is blocking CD in Geneva because they do not wantanyone inspecting.

P-5 accept to time bound system? 5 point plan of Ban Ki-moon. China

has difficulty about moratorium and Russians dislike tactical nuclear

weapons limitations; legally binding Negative Security, which isunacceptable to the US.

Iran sanctions draft: no influence on the review conference; question

of sanctions has been contained in Security Council; not influencing

the final document.

Optimistic? Five years ago not optimistic. This time I think (a deal) isreachable. Everyone is focused on the eight issues. And if there is a

conference in the Middle East, no one will remember how the

resolution is worded.

P-5 statement said all five agreed to continue moratoria on testing?They continue moratoria, the existing one. China wants to keep the

possibility open about future testing. Things will change with

ratification of CTBT by the US and not before then.

Iran, TRR to IAEA, any sympathy? Charmed by Obama initiative?

Agreement with TRR does not change the fact that Iran has notfulfilled its obligations with the IAEA. It is something important (deal

with Brazil and Turkey) but technically it cannot work. It is only oneyear and it takes more time to get the enriched uranium for the TR.They are not in line with the NPT and the IAEA.

Nothing in NPT against Iran enrichment? They have the right to enrich.

They did not allow the IAEA inspectors to inspect. They dont have any

use for enrichment at a 20 percent level. Their answer is we shall notanswer. They have to clarify because they are part of NPT and

because IAEA asked.

Iran vs. Israel, double standard? Scientists?

UAE wants nuke energy reactor from S Korea. We are going to train

about 1,000 people to manage it. Nuclear scientists. You need about3,000 people. No problem to train them because they say they are

going to be transparent. Jordon saying the same thing.


5/5

Future: India and Pakistan are in a Cold War situation. After 10-20years they may say because of nuclear weapons there will be peace,

disarmament will begin. In the case of Israel, it is a question of thesecurity of the region, can it get out of this ambiguity.

The very day that they will feel there are no more problems in thezone, in terms of security. For the moment and the coming years, it

will be very difficult. But never say never. Things happen not becauseyou have not decided them but because conditions of disarmament are

there. Artificial deadlines dont work. You need a security system

which allows you to have disarmament.

Example (and never say it comes from me). NATO is positive action,US warheads used to protect another country. You could have US

troops in Israel (attack against Israel is attack against USA). Like the

Cold War situation in Germany. You dont need national weaponscause of the umbrella of another one. 20 years from now may be

different.

Iran TR? No influence on NPT conference on Iran sanctions threat.Getting this fuel in one year is impossible. It takes at least 1.5 years.

The Iranian uranium will be in Turkey and the deal is that after one

year, they can take it back. Since it takes more than one year. thereis something tricky there but we will see. (Christophe: Who is going to

pay for it?)

Linkage to original FR and RU offer? US made clear they wouldsuspend push for new sanctions. What is different now?

At that time they had 1,000 kilos and now they had 2,000 kilos. Weknow they produce about 100 kilos per month. So they have a bit

more than 2,000 now.

Attributable to Western official, no quotes.

french briefing

Documents