External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten & Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou.

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