PRESS CONFERENCE BY EUROPEAN UNION

The Foreign Minister of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union Presidency, briefed correspondents on the Union's activities in New York at a Headquarters press conference today.  Per Stig Moeller said the European Union had been involved in discussions on Iraq, Afghanistan, the International Criminal Court and the situation in the Middle East.  European Union Commissioner, Chris Patten, also briefed correspondents.

On the issue of Iraq -- Dr. Moeller praised the speech of United States President George W. Bush to the General Assembly yesterday.  The Union fully shared the President's concern with Iraq's continued defiance and with its weapons of mass destruction.  The Union greatly valued President Bush's decision to address the problem of Iraq multilaterally.  The Union also valued the forceful statement of United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan.  Iraq had been at the centre of the Union's discussions with the United States, Russia and China.  The Union shared the commitment to enforce international legal order through the Security Council and he urged the Council to face its responsibilities.

The Union had had an honest and open discussion with China on other current political issues, including Afghanistan, Dr. Moeller continued. 

A European Union-China summit would take place later in the month in Copenhagen to lay the ground for further cooperation between China and the European Union. 

The Union had also had an open-minded meeting with United States Secretary of State Colin Powell on the International Criminal Court, he said.  The Union had all along been a firm supporter of the Court, which would be a source of greater international justice in the world.  The Union, however, was aware of the United States' concerns regarding the Court.  While it would look for ways to accommodate United States' concerns, it would not do so in a way that undermined the Court's integrity.  The Union would continue talks with the United States on the topic.  Both sides in the discussion had promised to be constructive.  He was pleased with the talks he had had with Secretary of State Powell today.

The Secretary-General's statement to the General Assembly yesterday was a tremendous tribute to the United Nations, Dr. Moeller said.  While the opening of the United Nations General Assembly had been marked by the tragic anniversary of 11 September, interventions in the Assembly had renewed the Union's hope, in that the United Nations had been affirmed as a core organization for legitimate action by the international community.

As members of the "Quartet", the Union shared with Russia and the United States common objectives for the Middle East, he said.  He had had a fruitful discussion this morning with Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov about the Middle East conflict.  The Union shared similar views with Russia on the way forward.  Russia had supported the Union's road map for peace.  He and Mr. Patten would be meeting with the other members of the Quartet in New York on 17 September.  The

Union had presented its road map for peace and on Tuesday, he hoped to make further advances in sketching out the next steps towards peace in the Middle East.

Asked if Dr. Moeller had a vision for a possible Security Council resolution on Iraq, he said it was obvious that the Union supported the United Nations and the Security Council.  It was up to the Council to make clear that its resolutions were respected.  It was also up to the Council to decide upon the consequences for failure to respect its resolutions.  While the Union was not a member of the Council, it had expressed its support for the Council.  United Nations inspectors must be allowed to return to Iraq.  While a resolution must be firm and resolute, it was not up to him to decide on consequences.

Was the European Union supporting the idea of a timeline in Security Council resolutions? a correspondent asked.  It was up to the Council to ensure that its decisions would be respected, he responded.  Previous resolutions had not been respected.  Both the Secretary-General and President Bush had made clear that the United Nations and the Security Council must be respected.  Failure to comply with the call for the return of weapons inspectors must result in some consequences.  The first step was to allow for the return of inspectors.  The second step depended on what the weapons inspectors found -- or did not find.

Asked to comment on Russia's position on Iraq, he said he could not speak on behalf of the Russian Foreign Minister.  It was his impression, however, that Russia also wanted to be sure that the Security Council's decisions were respected.

Were there differences of opinion among the various European leaders on the Iraq issue? a correspondent asked.  The Union had reached consensus on the issue, he said.  The consensus was that inspections had to return and that the Union supported the United Nations and the Council. 

In response to a question on Georgia, Dr. Moeller said he discussed the matter with Mr. Ivanov.  The Union had made clear -- and Mr. Ivanov had

agreed -- that unilateral action was not acceptable.  There could be no military solution to the problem.  Russia, however, had to deal with terrorism in its territory.  That was why Georgia had to establish control over the Pankisi Valley.  Georgia had to stop terrorism.  A political solution to the problem must be found.  He believed that Russia shared the same point of view.  

On Iraq, was there a realistic way that United States' demands could be accommodated within an inspections system? a correspondent asked.  There was growing momentum on the idea that the United Nations had to be respected in the matter, he said.  There was also agreement that the matter had to be dealt with now.  Iraq could not be given six months to discuss the issue.  But, he could not discuss possible technical issues.  It was up to the Security Council and Hans Blix, the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, to discuss a realistic time frame.  The time to return to Iraq had come, and he supported the Secretary-General and President Bush in that regard.                                  

Asked whether he saw military action as inevitable, Dr. Moeller said that if Iraq were wise, it would let weapons inspectors in.  It was important that Iraq knew that anything could happen.  It was up to the Council to decide, however.

In response to a question on a European Union common policy regarding the International Criminal Court, he said consensus had been reached that the Union would respect the ICC and not do anything to undermine the integrity of the Rome Statute.  It was a fact of life, however, that the United States had not signed the treaty and that it had obtained a special arrangement through the Council last July.  Because the Union wanted the United States to be in the peacekeeping business, and because it wanted the ICC to begin operations, a solution to accommodate the United States without undermining the Court must be found.  The United States and the Union had agreed to work to find a legal formula, which both respected the ICC and took into account the United States being outside of the Court.

Asked whether he thought a conference on the Middle East should be convened before the Iraq crisis was resolved, Dr. Moeller said it was the Union's position that a peace conference should be held as early as possible.  The first question was, when is it possible?  The other question was, what would the conference confirm?  The Union had presented a road map and had started an initiative with the various task forces and working groups, which were working well.  There had been some progress since July, but not enough.  The road map had been accepted by the Arab countries and today by Russia.  While he could not say exactly when a peace conference could take place, the Union hoped to hold a conference as soon as possible.

The process of established, reformed Palestinian institutions had made good progress, Mr. Patten added.  In order for the ministers that were leading the reform to retain credibility and for the process to command support among Palestinians, however, there must be a clear political prospect of moving steadily towards a Palestinian State.  "There's a difference between a road map and a cul-de-sac", he said.  If the reform process was a way of "parking" the Palestinian question over the next few months, the Palestinian people would run out of patience and the reform process would run out of road.

Dr. Moeller said it was important to have combined security and political goals.  If the Palestinians did not think that they could achieve statehood in three years, they would not provide security.  The Palestinians would not get political goals unless Israel felt it was secure.  In that respect, it was a "catch-22" situation.  Security must be given to Israel.  Without security, the negotiations would not start.  But without a clear political commitment to establish a Palestinian State within three years time, he did not think that Israel would receive security.

Was the United States as willing as the rest of the Quartet to commit to a specific road map and a timeline? a correspondent said.  Dr. Moeller said it remained to be seen.  He had no doubt that the United States wanted peace.  While progress had been modest, the fact that there had been progress was encouraging.  The road map, with monitoring by the Quartet, was important.

Mr. Patten said that in some areas the progress had been marked and considerable.  One limiting factor, however, was closures and curfews.  It was not easy to make progress in establishing the institutions of a modern democratic state under those circumstances.

Asked to comment on a possible "regime change" in Iraq, Dr. Moeller said the important thing was the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, if they existed.  The Union had been working towards that goal. 

Did the Union support a regime change? a correspondent asked.  It would be surprising if a resolution contained a clause about regime change, Mr. Patten said.  A resolution would most likely pull together what had been said in previous resolutions.  To get Saddam Hussein to comply with resolutions, however, a regime change might be needed.  He was certain that the people of Iraq would benefit from that. 

* *** *