HEADQUARTERS PRESS CONFERENCE ON UNITED NATIONS-EUROPEAN UNION RELATIONS

HEADQUARTERS PRESS CONFERENCE ON UNITED NATIONS-EUROPEAN UNION RELATIONS

Highlighting preparations for the creation of a 60,000-strong rapid reaction force in Europe, Pierre Schori of Sweden, which holds the current European Union presidency, told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference today that the hastening pace of relations between the United Nations and the European Union (EU) would lead to some solid but informal links between them, as well as some promising possibilities for the future.

Mr. Schori was joined by Stephane De Loecker (Belgium) a representative of the Union's incoming Presidency; John Richardson, Head of the Delegation of the European Commission; and Frederick Moys, Head of the Liaison Office of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union.

Pierre Schori said that the Union saw the United Nations as a cornerstone of its foreign security policy.  He drew attention to an information kit on the Union, which had been made available to corespondents.  It outlined the structural, political and policy goals of the Union and highlighted efforts under way to deepen what Mr. Schori called "EU-UN" relations.

He said that while the Secretary-General was in Brussels last week in connection with the Conference on the Least Developed Countries, he had also met formally with the General Affairs Council of the European Union, which is made up of the Union's Foreign Ministers.  Future cooperation was discussed, and it was decided that there would be a high-level meeting between the Secretary-General and the General Affairs Council once or twice a year, as well as biennial meetings at the senior working level between the Deputy Secretary-General and the Committee on Foreign and Security Policy. 

Cooperation would focus, in the first phase, on crisis management and conflict prevention, and specifically on the Union's development of a civil and military capacity for conflict prevention/crisis management, Mr. Schori said.  By 2003, the European Union would be able to mobilize, on very short notice, up to 60,000 soldiers and 5,000 police.  The recent discussions centred on how to ensure that those resources provided an "added value" to the United Nations, as well as where and under which mandate those forces might be used.  Generally, the Union wanted a United Nations mandate when United Nations operations were involved.  Discussions in that regard on ensuring compatibility would continue.

Also, he said, there was a strong development cooperation dimension in the relationship.  Just before the recent United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, hosted by the European Union, the Union announced its "everything but arms" initiative, aimed at removing all tariff and trade barriers between it and the 49 least developed countries.  By the end of the month, the Union would formally take a decision on a communication concerning the "new kind of relationship" developing between it and the United Nations.  That relationship was defined by more solid cooperation, including on the sustainability and scope of programmes.

Mr. Richardson, Head of the Delegation of the European Commission, said the information kit represented a collective effort and was the result of the

extensive interaction between the Union and the United Nations.  European integration was very much about how to react –- within the European context --  in an interdependent environment.  The United Nations did that in the global context.  The question of organization within the Union was parallel to organization within the world community.  Thus, the Union was "very much in tune" with what the United Nations was trying to do.

Asked whether the European Union had since "changed minds in Washington", following what he called the initial "hostile" reaction from the United States to the creation of a rapid reaction force, Mr. Schori said there were initial mixed signals.  For many years, the United States had asked for more burden-sharing in that field.  When the Union proceeded to develop the required capacity, there was perhaps some surprise in Washington and some mixed signals that seemed to say, "'well this is fine, but what about NATO?'".  Concern was expressed that the project might erode NATO.  But since the Russian "Troika visit" in February to Washington, D.C., to meet with United States Secretary of State Colin Powell and others, the initiative to develop that capacity had been "very much welcomed". 

Mr. Moys, Head of the Liaison Office of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, added that the Commander-in-Chief of the Union’s military committee was recently in Washington, D.C., in full uniform.  For the first time in Washington they could see, in concrete terms, not virtual reality, that the military capacity of the European Union was in place.  At a summit meeting in June, in the presence of United States President George Bush, it would be announced that the permanent military mechanisms established for the projected European Union capacity were now in place, including the relevant structures and officers.  By the end of 2002, the bulk of the 60,000 soldiers would be ready.

A correspondent noted that the European Union had repeatedly stressed the need for integration in pursuit of its goals.  There had been no such move towards integration on the Security Council, he said -– no question of merging two vetoes into one.  How could that be explained?

Mr. Schori said the Union was coordinating its foreign security policy in Europe and on the global level.  To be technical, article 19 of the Amsterdam Treaty says that the European Union should also promote its foreign security policy worldwide in international institutions, including in the Security Council.  At the same time, it would not want to infringe upon the permanent member structure on the Council. 

He said that the European Union was increasing the level of information from the permanent Council members who were also members of the EU at a weekly meeting, established to inform the rest of the Union's members about what had been going on and what would take place in the coming weeks.  It could then decide collectively, at a weekly ambassadorial meeting, where, how and if the European Union presidency should speak on behalf of the Union in the Council's open meetings.  In that context, the Union had spoken some 25 times in the Council since January.  On the other hand, it was not coordinating when it came to Council or General Assembly reform. 

Surely you don’t see Britain and France as the EU representatives in the Security Council, because they are likely to vote differently, let's say on the Iraq issue, the correspondent said.  So you don't have an influence on how those countries vote? he asked.

Mr. Schori replied, "oh yes, we do", adding that, of course, they were there in their own right as permanent members -- but the EU was trying more and more to coordinate its foreign security policy, including in the Security Council.  That was why it was having those briefings from the Council, and why in its presidency had made so many appearances there on behalf of the whole Union.  On open discussions on Kosovo and the Congo, for instance, he spoke after the Council members had spoken.  The permanent and non-permanent members of the Council that were also members of the European Union, namely the United Kingdom, France and Ireland, had referred to the forthcoming speech by the Union presidency and explained that they wished to add their remarks in their national capacities.

Mr. Moys pointed out that one of the European treaties contained an obligation for Member States of the European Union which were also permanent members of the Security Council to "defend the interests of the European Union".  If the European Union, on one or another subject, did not have a common interest defined, then those Member States should take whatever position they deemed fit.  But where there was a European position to take -- and that applied to 99 per cent of the issues -- then they were obliged to defend it.  And they do defend it", he said.

That meant that wherever there was an European Union position, it was defended by the European Union Member States who were in the Security Council,

Mr. Richardson added.

So, the national interests of Britain and France could not supersede that of the European Union if there was a European Union position? the correspondent asked in a follow-up question.

Mr. Richardson said that aEuropean Union position represented the national position of all 15 members; that was what a common foreign security policy position was all about.  Since they had already adopted a position collectively, "they adopt it, of course, individually too", he said.

Another correspondent asked how the European Union, as a strong entity, could benefit the developing world, particularly with regard to human rights.

Mr. Schori said that in the Human Rights Commission in Geneva, some Union members -– France, Austria and Sweden –- had been voted in from the Western group and the United States had not.  Even non-members of the Commission could co-sponsor resolutions and be very active.  Sweden, as the current EU presidency, had introduced 11 resolutions on such questions as China, Chechnya, and Cuba.  The Commission was most important in the human rights field, of course, because every year it was "naming and shaming" the human rights violators and contributing in many cases, to changing legislation and improving human rights situations.  Also, the European Union held bilateral and multilateral meetings on human rights questions.

The correspondent asked whether the Union could help bring peace to the Middle East, particularly in light of United States support for Israel and the resulting difficulties faced by the Palestinians.

Mr. Schori said the Union had fully supported the Mitchell Report (named for United States Senator George Mitchell, who investigated recent Israeli-Palestinian violence).  That report was now the "only show in town" and following it was "the best way to go forward".  The Union had also expressed support for the Egyptian/Jordanian initiative.

He said the Union had "a very clear position" on the Middle East.  It fully supported all relevant United Nations resolutions and the Sharm el-Sheikh memorandum.  It also had special envoys in the region.  While it strongly supported the Mitchell report and the Egyptian/Jordanian initiative, it was the parties themselves that must finally make peace.

Responding to a request for clarification on the nature of the formal meetings between the Secretary-General and the European Union, Mr. Schori said he did not want to bureaucratize the question in any way or imply that the Union had a privileged position.  Those meetings were in the framework of cooperation between regional organizations and the United Nations.  The initiative was mainly political, and the European Union wanted to further United Nations efforts in various ways.  So there would be annual and bi-annual meetings at the top and senior working levels, and perhaps some informal working groups.  Those should not be too formal, he added.

Given the European Union’s common policy on human rights, why was it necessary to have more than one European Union country elected to the Human Rights Commission? a correspondent asked.

Mr. Schori said the Union did not coordinate candidacies in the United Nations.  There had been many people who wanted to play a role in the Commission.  Unfortunately, there were three seats and four candidates.  At a too-late stage, it dawned upon everyone that "we were one too many".  The members of the Western European Group and Other Groups (WEOG) should strive for "clean slates" in the human rights field.  It was "unfortunate that the situation developed", he said.

Asked if he could envision a day when a common European defence force replaced the Stabilization Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (SFOR), for example, and took over NATO's role in peacekeeping, he said, yes, maybe.

To a related question, he said the European Union was discussing whether or not it would participate in United Nations peacekeeping operations outside Europe.  If there was a United Nations mandate, and it was accepted by the Union, then, yes.  Basically, when a country member of the European Union decided to send a contingent, whether part of a European operation or a United Nations one, it was still up to the national Government to be or not to be a part of the operation. 

There would definitely be cooperation at the European level if there were a move to send a contingent to Africa or elsewhere.  But it was the decision of each Member State to decide whether to send its own troops.  So there would not be a standing European Union army.  National assets in every country would be prepared and assembled as needed.

To a series of questions about how the European Union might help oppressed people around the world, Mr. De Loecker highlighted the very important role being played by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).  It was within that organization that such issues as Chechnya were closely monitored.

Mr. Moys said that one of the most important initiatives in that sense was the proposal to establish an international criminal court, which had the full

support of the European Union.  The court would be a significant deterrent against oppressive regimes.

Mr. Richardson added that while there was a growing consciousness worldwide about human rights violations, the world community expressed its view through individual States, and there were limits on the extent to which the world community could infringe on the sovereignty of individual States.  The EU was very firmly committed to the idea of multilateral institutions; it did not like to "throw its weight around" unilaterally, although it did have instruments in the form of bilateral agreements with a large number of countries. 

Concerning a question about a bill pending in the United States Congress that would cut off military aid to all non-NATO States that ratified the proposal for an International Criminal Tribunal -- while also giving the United States permission to extract American service personnel being held by the Tribunal --

Mr. Schori said the EU had told United States Government officials that it strongly favoured the court's establishment, and that it would also be in the interest of the United States to join.  "We are really pushing there," he added.

Mr. Schori added that the defection of United States Senator James Jeffords from the Republican party, causing a shift in the Republican leadership of the Senate, might be a "sea change".

Mr. Richardson said that the passage of United States domestic legislation that sought to influence the decisions of other sovereign States, including members of the European Union, had always been strongly opposed.  The Union did not accept the unilateral dictates of American law.  It did accept international  multilateral commitments.

Asked if "that kind of position" in the United States Government had anything to do with it losing its seats on two commissions of the United Nations a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Schori said no.  The basic question was that there were four candidates for three seats.  When it went to a general vote in the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), other factors might have contributed. 

To a question about refugees, Mr. Schori said the European Union supported United Nations efforts.  It had not sought closer cooperation with the Organization in order to export its own internal problems.

* *** *