Press Conference
External Relations
Commissioner Chris Patten & Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou.
PRESS CONFERENCE WITH COMMISSIONER PATTEN, MINISTER PAPANDREOU
AND MR. HÉLIN
February 27, 2003
Delegation of the European Commission to the United States
Washington, DC
Mr.
Hélin: Thank you
very much for your patience.
Mr. Solana is not there yet so we will start with
Minister Papandreou and
Commissioner Patten. The rules are that cameras should not be rolling
when the gentlemen talk, because it was supposed to be a bit of a closer
club. But would you please also as usual identify yourselves when we start
the Q&A. I will pass the floor immediately because the gentlemen are in a
bit of a hurry.
Mr.
Papandreou: I
don’t think we need too much of an introduction. It was a constructive
meeting. We discussed of course
Iraq; the European position is quite clear. We speak of full
disarmament, full compliance, disarmament of Iraq. We also say that we don’t
exclude the use of force, but see it as a last resort and obviously prefer a
peaceful resolution of this crisis if possible. We see the UN as playing the
key role in whatever developments on Iraq and we have also discussed the
issue of the
Middle East Process as a high priority in publishing of a road map. We
have discussed
North Korea and the need for a close cooperation between the European
Union and the US
on
weapons of mass destruction, proliferation and the new threats we have
in this century. We also discussed
Cyprus and the positive prospect, the movement that we see there and the
possibility of a peaceful solution. Kofi Annan is now, as we are speaking,
in Cyprus and has invited the leaders of the two sides to meet in the next
few days in order possibly to come up with a solution. So I think both
sides, both the European Union and the US, very much support his efforts.
Chris, do you want to add anything to that before we get into questions?
Mr.
Patten: No, I am
quite happy to be egalitarian to the press.
Mr.
Hélin: Okay,
please start.
Journalist (USA Today):
Question on North Korea.
Mr.
Papandreou:
Well, the European Union has in the past been involved also in the issue of
North Korea and you may remember under the
Swedish Presidency a visit there and I think it had positive results.
Now we are in a more difficult situation and obviously we have voiced our
anxieties and fears about the developments in North Korea concerning the
possibility of development of nuclear weapons. This is something which we
would be glad to help in any way and we have talked about this with Colin
Powell. Javier Solana was in South Korea
and Japan some weeks ago also discussing this issue and we are also ready to
have a high level visit if necessary and certainly have supported this
multilateral approach and glad to be part of it. Chris, you may with your
experience of that region want to say a few words also.
Mr.
Patten: First
of all, why was it suggested that we should be part of this multilateral
effort? I think the reason is clear. We have been one of the largest
providers of
humanitarian assistance in the DPRK and continue to provide humanitarian
assistance. We provided more food aid for mothers and young children just
before Christmas. And we have been over the years contributors to
KEDO, to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. We were
discussing before the DPRK broke their agreements one or two small technical
cooperation projects which we thought would help the North Koreans. So, as
well as the visit we paid in order to support the Kim Dae Jung
reconciliation policy on the peninsula, we have been pretty active players.
We don’t kid ourselves; we are not as significant in resolving this, I
think, extremely dangerous situation. We are not as significant as some of
the great regional powers: the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Chinese, the
Americans, the Russians. But we can play a role and will do so if and when
people want. It is a problem for the international community and should be
dealt with through international cooperation and through multilateral
efforts. Of course the North Koreans are particularly concerned about their
relationship with the United States. When we went to Pyongyang a couple of
years ago with prime Minister Persson of Sweden it was perfectly clear that
Kim Jong—who we spent six-and-a-half hours with—wanted above all talk to us
about his relationship with the United States. So we recognized the
importance of that in the mix. But what is happening in North Korea is a
challenge for the whole international community. It’s part of a broader
challenge, which the Minister raised today with both the National Security
Advisor and with the Secretary of State, about how the world copes with the
whole issue of the manufacture and proliferation potentially used for
weapons of mass destruction. And we have to do that through much more
comprehensive and profound international cooperation that will be required
in the DPRK.
Mr.
Papandreou:
Since you mention that, Chris, that coming up to the
summit of the EU with the US President in June, we do hope to discuss
these matters in a way where we can actually come up with a framework of
possible steps forward to deal with strengthening the regimes of countering
proliferation and weapons of mass destruction.
Same journalist (USA Today):
Question about one-on-one talks with North Korea.
Mr.
Patten:
Everybody should be talking to them. They have been provocative; they have
broken their word again and again; they have broken agreements. We don’t
want North Korea to turn into a nuclear weapon-making factory with anybody
able to come along and buy weapons off the shelf. That is not an outcome
which any of us would be happy with. So they are problems that all of us
have to address. But it is obviously in the mind of Kim Jong and the North
Korean leadership. Clearly the relationship with the United States is
central to his thinking as it was in the days when Secretary of Defense Mr.
Perry shaped policies so successfully.
Journalist: Question about the Middle East and
the Road Map.
Mr.
Papandreou:
Well, first of all, we have, you know, the European Union position is very
clear that we want to see this move as soon as possible and that we have
delayed it more then necessary. Secondly, we did also bring to bear the fact
that there is a deep frustration in the region that this has not been solved
or is not on a road to getting solved. Therefore, the road map is absolutely
necessary to move ahead. Publication is I think a step in showing the
political world to move forward. In our discussions I think this has been
first of all what we got from both our discussions with Condoleezza Rice and
Colin Powell and, of course, from Bush’s speech: the commitment to move
forward on the peace process there. Secondly, I think there was a real
thinking process going on about when will be the best time to publicize this
road map and move ahead, and I think our arguments have been useful in this
discussion. In the end I think it will be of course our credibility at stake
as to whether we do move forward, and I think our credibility is with all
those who do want peace in a region: the peace camps on both sides, but also
the Arab world and our citizens in Europe. Talking as the EU, they are expecting that we move forward
on this. So I think that we brought that to the attention of our
interlocutors, and I think that was taking on a positive sense.
Journalist: Question about the effect of a possible war in Iraq on the Middle East
Peace Process.
Mr.
Papandreou:
Well, I wouldn’t say that it was directly linked with the war in Iraq. But I
think there is some thinking going on in the Administration as to what might
be the best time, and I think that some say that very soon is the best time
and not wait for the Iraqi war. Obviously, you read all the articles and
analyses about how the Iraqi war will affect the Middle East peace process.
I think what we have to be clear about is that there is a road map—we have
worked on it as a Quartet—and that we should stick with it to move forward
on the peace process and not wait for some miracle to occur simply because
of a war. Obviously, things do change, and this will change some things. But
in the end you have very specific actors on the ground there, and they need
to get together and move on a political solution.
Mr.
Patten: I think,
when we left Washington in
December after the Quartet meetings, we thought that we had a pretty
solid document agreed by the representatives of the international community.
And, even though there might be some “I”s to be dotted and “T”s to be
crossed, I think that the document that we agreed was a very sensible way of
turning president Bush’s speech of the 24th of June last year
into reality: moving forward to create a viable underlying viable
Palestinian state. And, because of the importance of viability, I was
pleased that yesterday President Bush addressed the issue of settlements,
which is obviously key to whether you have a proper state rather then simply
an administrative entity. The important point about publication as soon as
possible is it demonstrates the ownership by the international community of
what we have been working on. Now, the two parties to this long-running and
bloody feud will doubtless have their views on the best way forward. But I
think the road map reflected the wisdom and the commitment of the
international community of the UN, of the Russian Federation, of the United
States and of the European Union: all of us bringing a good deal to the
effort. As for the relationship between any military action—which may result
from a breakdown in the attempt to disarm Saddam Hussein through inspections
and the situation in the Middle East—I am not sure whether military conflict
customarily has a moderating effect on opinion. Sometimes it does; sometimes
it doesn’t. What I do feel very strongly is this: let’s suppose the worst,
which is maybe not a wise thing for me to do. Let’s suppose that we are not
able to disarm Saddam Hussein through inspection. Let’s suppose that there
is a military conflict in Iraq which, pray God, would be short and swift.
If, after that, there is still no sign of progress in Palestine, if after
that people throughout the Islamic world are switching on their televisions
every night and still seeing pictures of Palestinian kids throwing stones at
tanks, I think the impact on opinion in the Islamic world will be very bad.
And that is something that we all have to be concerned about. I think the
impact in Europe would be very bad, as well. So, there is no mechanistic
relationship between Iraq and the situation in Palestine. And I don’t
believe one moment that Saddam Hussein gives a toss about the position of
the Palestinians. But, on the other hand, there is plainly a relationship in
terms of the public mood in the Arab countries—and the Islamic world as a
whole—and that should concern us.
Mr.
Hélin: Thank
you.
Journalist: Question on Cyprus.
Mr.
Papandreou: I
think Cyprus is a case where we have worked very closely together: the EU
and the US in coordinating our efforts to get as much as possible movement
and a solution. First of all—and here, I think—the US has been consistently
discussing with the Turkish side and all in Turkey involved about the
benefits of finding a solution on Cyprus. Cyprus is a divided island right
now—a huge Turkish contingent army of 35,000 in the north—and Cyprus is
becoming a member of the EU. Turkey wants to be a member of the EU also—a
candidate country—and the Turkish Cypriots want to be part of the EU. So, in
one sense, I think what we are showing as the EU is that we are creating a
great dynamic to bridge historical differences, to create a common basis or
common roof, if you like, of values of democracy, freedom, tolerance,
multiculturalism. And this EU is a common vision for both Greek and Turkish
Cypriots. Therefore, I think this is where the great strength of the EU is,
and I think that is sometimes lost in our
transatlantic dialogues. The EU is a project that has been successful in
uniting a continent with huge wars in the past century: whether it’s the
world war, whether it’s the cold war, whether it’s the Balkan wars, whether
it’s Cyprus. We are seeing this momentum of unification, of integration,
into a community of values changing completely the whole picture of regions.
We are working very closely together, and I feel that the Turks—and we have
been supportive of their candidacy as Greeks, but also as the Presidency are
working with them—I think they understand it’s very important for them to
help to find a solution on Cyprus. So there is more optimism I would say
than there has been ever before. It doesn’t mean we are there. We are still
at a difficult point. But I think, if there is a political will on the
Turkish side, we’ll get to solutions.
Journalist: Another question regarding the new Turkish government and Cyprus.
Mr.
Papandreou:
Chris, you were there in
Ankara recently. I was in Ankara
also recently to discuss another issue on the agenda of the Cyprus issue,
and we talked very open and frank with them on that issue.
Journalist: Any response?
Mr.
Papandreou:
Well, this new government seems to be more positive on a possible solution.
They are not the only ones who make the decisions. There are many factors in
Turkey that play a role in this decision-making, and obviously the military
is one. But we hope that they see that it’s very in their interest to have a
solution on Cyprus from all aspects, from all approaches.
Journalist: On Iraq, when does
Mr. Powell think that the time has run out and, second, how are the UN going
to react?
Mr.
Papandreou:
Well, first of all, we have a clear position in the EU that we should
exhaust all diplomatic means. And the UN is in the driver’s seat of this
whole process. Now, you know the debate on time. So I don’t have to go into
that debate and this debate in the US, in Europe, between Europe and the US
or many European countries and the US. So it’s not Europe itself that is
sitting on the Security Council. And we are waiting for Hans Blix’s report.
And, obviously, the Security Council will make a decision one way or
another. But I think that what we stressed is that, if there is a window of
opportunity, we will use it. And this is a mandate which came out of the
summit in the EU, a summit last week in Brussels.
And we discussed the meeting we will be having with the
Arab League on Saturday [March 1]. Chris and I were in Cairo last week,
meeting with foreign ministers of the Arab League, and we can get a clear
message to Saddam Hussein. You said in the interview you are not sure his
radio is tuned to the right station or he is listening to it, but let’s make
sure he gets the right message. That doesn’t mean that we solve it. But, if
he does, there is one chance that he may understand it that he must move.
The time span is something which the European Union is not to decide. But
whatever time span there may be, we will use it to try to find if possible a
peaceful solution of this conflict which means of course full compliance and
disarmament from Saddam Hussein.
Journalist: Will there be a solution?
Mr.
Papandreou:
Well, let me put it this way: if, in general, in the EU all 15 will say it
is for the UN to decide. Now, within the UN you have differences as to
whether there is a need for the UN resolution because it has to do very much
with the time factor and whether or not some feel the inspection is going
well or relatively well. And others are saying we don’t think it is really
producing the results we want. There you have a difference, and I will be
very open about that. There is a big debate about that. But that’s part of
our society. We have democratic societies, and there is very strong
political opinion in all our countries about this whole issue. It’s an issue
of war and peace.
Journalist: After meeting with the Administration, is there no way they will
change their mind?
Mr.
Papandreou:
Well, I don’t want to speak for the Administration. I think that they have
made their public statements. I think that, however, there will be a public
debate. And there already is a lot of contact between the members of the
Security Council—telephone meetings and so on. We in the Presidency are
discussing with all our members—and, of course, in particular the members
that are in the Security Council. So I would not want to put a date to
things, but obviously the time frame is not an indefinite one and it’s
pretty close. So I think we need to work as hard as we can, if we want to
see a possible peaceful resolution of this.
Journalist: Question on Iraq after the
war.
Mr.
Patten: Let me
answer that by an analogy. We recognized the importance and the validity of
military action in
Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and to end the life not so much of
a state that backed terrorism, but terrorism which backed a state. And after
the departure of the Taliban, the EU as a whole committed itself very
substantially to reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. I went to Tokyo
to the donors’ conference and on behalf of the European Commission, which is
spending European taxpayers’ money. We pledged to spend one billion on
reconstruction over five years. In fact, we’ll spend 1.2 or something like
that. Last year, if you add together what the European Commission and the
member states spent on reconstruction in Afghanistan, it comes to about 830
million. We committed that and we actually spent over 750 million already.
To go on ramming numbers at you, the Commission will spend in 2002 and
2003—mostly on reconstruction, but on humanitarian assistance as well—over
half a billion Euro. Now that’s within circumstances where there was general
agreement that force had to be used, that there were consequences of using
force, that we have to be committed after the use of force to
reconstruction. And it was in circumstances where there was clearly an
international hat: not just being carried around for donors’ money, but on
top of the reconstruction assistance and work that was being done. It’s
easier for us to contemplate substantial contributions of reconstruction
assistance when—and this is a statement of the blindingly obvious—when all
the member states are on one side, when they all agree that we should have
some ownership of reconstruction. And it’s easier for us to do it when there
is clearly an international flavor and dimension to the management of the
enterprise. I am accountable, democratically accountable, to the European
Parliament and to the parliaments of the member states. I have to go to the
member states and the parliament to get my budget. And it is easier for me
to get a budget for an exercise which the member states agree is essential
and agree should be a priority and an enterprise which they agree is
international rather then belonging to one country or another.
Journalist: Did you discuss it in those terms?
Mr.
Patten: No, we
didn’t discuss it in those terms because we’ll hope in the EU that the
problem in Iraq can be dealt without military action. What we have done and
have talked a bit about, because it would have been irresponsible not to do
so, is the humanitarian consequences of a conflict. I have discussed the
humanitarian situation with the government of Jordan, with the government of
Iran. My colleagues have discussed it with the Syrians. We have also had a
good deal of experience of working in Iraq. We have provided in the last few
years over 150 million in humanitarian assistance, mostly through
non-governmental organizations in Iraq:
for example, food and health projects. We have had assessment missions in
Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Iran to look at what might be required in the
event of a military conflict, and we have worked very closely with the UN.
We have done all this discretely. And we don’t think that, because we have
made these preparations, we are accepting the inexorable logic of a military
solution to the problem. But it would have been falling down on the job—I
think it would have been irresponsible—not to have made those preparations.
I have to say that there are, if you look at the question of food
distribution—we are facing a lot of humanitarian challenges at one and the
same time. There are growing problems in Southern Africa. There are problems in the whole of Africa. We are providing
food assistance in North Korea.
And the humanitarian situation in the West Bank and Gaza is absolutely
terrible. That is one of the messages that came out of the donors’ meeting
last week in London, the so-called Ad Hoc Liaison Committee. And I guess
that the humanitarian situation in Palestine could deteriorate further if,
during a military conflict in Iraq, the closures and curfews policy of the
Israeli defense forces was stepped up. So, this is not an easy situation for
professionals involved in the delivery of humanitarian assistance to face.
And I guess the European Commission has as much experience in delivering
humanitarian assistance as anyone. I am not saying that humanitarian
challenge should determine exactly what decision we take in the Security
Council or elsewhere. But I hope that those who take those decisions have
thought through the humanitarian consequences, because obviously—depending
on the length of any conflict—they could be pretty substantial. Can I add
one other thing? We have also had raised with us by Jordanians, Turks and
others the economic consequences of a war for them. And that’s something
else we have to keep in mind.
Journalist: Question on war in Iraq position
of the
European Parliament.
Mr.
Patten: Well, I
am not describing decisions that have been taken. I am giving you my best
political judgment. I read a column in an American newspaper the other day—I
read a column by Tom Friedman in the New York Times—in which Tom
Friedman was arguing how important it was to have as broad a coalition as
possible on Iraq, arguing that it would be particularly important to have as
broad a coalition as possible in order to deal with the aftermath if there
is a military confrontation. And Tom Friedman said that, in his judgment,
the same rule would apply as you see written up on a shelf in china shops:
if you break it, you own it. And I am not saying that is the settled policy
of the European Union. But that is what I am convinced a lot of legislators
will say to me when I go and ask them to sign checks for reconstruction
assistance. So it is always the case that the broader the coalition, the
more international authority of whatever has to be done, the more likely it
is that one will be able to persuade the representatives of taxpayers to put
their hand deep in their pocket.
Journalist: Question about US-appointed civilian administrator.
Mr.
Patten: I still
hope, we all hope—I am sure the American Administration hopes—that this will
be settled without a military confrontation, even if gloomily we
increasingly all of us take the view that Saddam Hussein simply doesn’t get
it. I noticed that Senator Lieberman made a speech yesterday arguing very
strongly for as international a flavor to any post-war reconstruction as
possible. And all I can say is I think he was speaking extremely good sense.
Journalist: Question on discussions with the Americans regarding the Kurds.
Mr.
Patten: Not
explicitly. But I am aware of the extent to which the Administration
understands the problem. I did talk about it a bit when I was in Ankara a
couple of weeks ago with the Turkish government, and it is an issue of
considerable importance and considerable sensitivity. In Ankara we are
talking about a government which has committed itself to, not only an
extraordinarily challenging program of economic reform, but a big agenda of
political reform as well. And many of those reforms touch on the liberties
and civil human rights of the Kurdish minority. It’s a lot easier to deal
with that agenda if you are not also, at the same time, having to deal with
political turbulence on your frontiers with Northern Iraq.
Journalist: Question on humanitarian assistance by the EU.
Mr.
Patten: That’s a
very fair and excellent question, a much shorter version of what I said.
Because, when I talk about these matters, I am not talking about my own
money. I am talking about the money which is provided by the taxpayers of 15
member states. The European Commission is not a 16th member
state. But we constantly are preparing against humanitarian disasters in a
number of places around the world. So it’s not very surprising that
professionally we should have made preparations in this case, too.
Journalist (US News and World Report): Was there any discussion today about
possible concrete steps that either the US or the EU or perhaps individual nations might be able to take to improve
the atmosphere of relations?
Mr.
Patten: We
talked about the importance of doing everything possible to prevent some of
the political disagreement which has leaked out in recent days and weeks,
polluting the overall relationship. And we talked about the importance of
insuring that we continue to work as successfully as we have been in recent
weeks and months on positive and important agendas—like the agenda which
touches on security, homeland security both in the US and Europe. We talked,
and it’s very much an initiative of the foreign ministers, about the weapons
of mass destruction point which he raised. I think that we have to recognize
on both sides of the Atlantic that, after all this is over, the enduring
reality is still that many of the things which Europe wants in the world can
only be achieved easily if we work with the United States. I think even the
US as the world’s only superpower—many of the things that Washington
wants can only be achieved easily by working with the EU. And that’s the
reality. We’re locked together in an indispensable partnership on which our
own prosperity and security on both sides of the Atlantic partly depends—and
on which the prosperity and security of most of the rest of the world
depends. So responsibly, when we disagree and fall out, we have to find ways
in which we can minimize the collateral damage and get back to some of the
basics and fundamentals. We have disagreed about some things which are
important: we have disagreed about the issue of global warming, though there
is not much sign of that today. We have disagreed about the
International Criminal Court. But it’s terribly important that we don’t,
on our side of the Atlantic, turn into patronizing, condescending critics.
And it’s important on this side of the Atlantic that the Fox News view of
Europe doesn’t prevail. And my own strong sense is that there hasn’t been
some fundamental change in America. The attitudes in America to
international cooperation are, I think, much as they have always been. I
read with considerable interest the survey of opinion done by the Chicago
Council on Foreign Relations in the German Marshal Fund of views on both
sides of the Atlantic, which demonstrates very clearly that the attitudes of
Main Street America and Main Street Europe are quite similar. But I hope
Americans recognize that the demonstrations we have seen in Europe in recent
weeks haven’t been in, again if I may say so, in Fox Newsspeak,
demonstrations by the usual suspects. The people who have been out on the
street deeply concerned have been left, right, center, nothing. I was very
struck in my own country by not only the size of the demonstrations, but by
the sort of people who were demonstrating: people who had never been on a
demonstration in their lives before. If you are a democrat, while you
recognize the importance of leadership not followership, you also, I am
sure, have to recognize that those haven’t turned out in those numbers
because of some passing ignorance or prejudice. It’s a real mood which needs
to be addressed, and I think Mr. Aznar was making that point in an interview
yesterday.
Mr.
Hélin: Further
questions?
Mr.
Patten: People
talk about—I better go after saying this—people talk about the disadvantages
of megaphone diplomacy. I don’t think it’s always the megaphones that are
the problem. It’s the people who are shouting into them.
Mr.
Hélin: Thank you
very much.
Transcript prepared by Beatrice O’Reilly
European Commission Delegation
Washington, DC
202/862-9538
