Today's Date:

THE MINISTER – I’m going to say a few words to you about the meetings I’ve been participating in since yesterday, over dinner, and then this morning’s sessions. As you know, Vilnius is a symbolic location for this first ministerial meeting since the NATO summit on 22 February.

(...)

EU/NATO/JOSCHKA FISCHER

As regards the first point we talked about yesterday, European Union-NATO relations, I recalled – as a precondition, if I can call it one, as far as France is concerned – the principle of the European Union’s autonomy of decision-making and action. The European Union can’t be subordinate to, or be in any way under any kind of control of NATO.

This confidence I sense between Europeans, this self-confidence is currently growing stronger with our increasing cohesion. During yesterday's debate, no one – and everyone spoke – questioned this principle of the European Union's autonomy of decision-making and action. Now that is clear, I repeat, we can discuss things on an equal footing. Of course, the structures aren't the same. The European Union and NATO are different in nature, but we have reasons for discussing, talking to each other about crisis-management and perhaps more broadly about defence. This is the idea Joschka Fisher has talked about, that of a political dialogue between the European Union as such and NATO, going beyond the dialogue already existing at ambassador level. I am open to strengthening this dialogue which will moreover encourage the Europeans to have their own vision, their own action, as in fact the European Constitution provides for.

Second point, the transatlantic dialogue, NATO is primarily a military organization. So in this framework it is natural and traditional for there to be discussion between the two shores of the Atlantic – it's been NATO's goal from the outset – for us to act on the ground, as we are doing and doing well. France is wholeheartedly participating – is even often lead nation, as she is at the moment in Kosovo and Afghanistan – in the NATO-led operations. So we shall be pursuing this dialogue between the two shores of the Atlantic, within NATO, on security issues, crisis management and the conduct of operations. But the dialogue between the European Union and the United States, between the two shores, is far more comprehensive, far broader – it has to be balanced – than the single major, but not sole, issue of defence. This is why I think, as Chancellor Schröder said a few weeks ago, that NATO can't be and in fact isn’t the only forum of transatlantic dialogue, particularly at a time when the European Union is itself changing, growing stronger, organizing itself as a political player, and is going to go on changing. This was the very purpose of President Bush's visit to Brussels, with two dialogues taking place at two different times, one with NATO and the other, which was also extremely interesting, with the European Council. (...)

MIDDLE EAST

As regards the Middle East, I have to say that the dialogue was political, and the possibility of a NATO role didn't come up. (...) This morning we also restated that for us the forum for the political debate – I wasn't the only one saying this – was the Quartet, with the Russians, European Union, Americans and United Nations.

SUDAN/NATO

We didn't talk about Sudan. As regards the idea I've been hearing of the possibility of various and varied NATO operations, I repeated – several of my colleagues confirmed that this was also their view – that it isn't NATO's job to be the world's policeman.

NATO/AFGHANISTAN/RUSSIA/UKRAINE

We have missions and objectives related to anything which can contribute to transatlantic security and the security of the European continent. This was the justification for us rapidly intervening together in Afghanistan because transatlantic security is at stake in the fight against terrorism.

This morning we had two interesting, fairly positive dialogues, one with Mr Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. I found it very useful, on Afghanistan, Georgia and the Middle East. And then we also had a dialogue with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, whom I personally had met in Kiev, in fact the very day the new government was formed.

I was in Kiev and was happy that an agreement had been found on this new stage in the partnership between Ukraine and NATO.

SUDAN

THE MINISTER – I’ve said that we didn't talk about Sudan, except for that comment, made I believe by my Canadian colleague yesterday. It wasn't discussed today. My feeling is that, acting in the United Nations framework and in support of the African Union, we must be ready to back the efforts both in the South, where a multinational force around 10,000 strong is going to be established, to consolidate the peace process and the agreement in southern Sudan, and in Darfur where the African Union is going to be asked to help, to increase the number of its personnel – and this is absolutely necessary – from 2,500 to 5,000 or 6,000. And here, certainly, there's a useful role, for example, for the European Union, which has already demonstrated its capacity to conduct operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo with Artemis, and by itself in the Balkans. So I think the European Union has a role to play here, not involving the sending of troops, but by providing logistics and transport capabilities and financial resources to help and support the African Union. (...)

UKRAINE/NATO

THE MINISTER – Frankly, no one talked about that today, nor in fact has it been talked about in the past few weeks. The Ukrainian people aspire to join Europe, become democratic – probably along the lines of the European democratic model which inspired and was even crucial in the "orange revolution". As I myself said in Kiev, this aspiration is legitimate, since Ukraine is situated geographically on European soil. But I also said, in Kiev and this morning, that it was necessary to put things and go through and complete the stages in the right order. There's already been one stage in the dialogue between Ukraine and NATO in 1997 [Charter on a Distinctive Partnership between NATO and Ukraine]. Since then a lot of things have happened, particularly with the "orange revolution". There's the new approach offered to Ukraine with this very close dialogue, which we must make a success of before thinking about anything else; this morning I talked about a number of concrete challenges facing Ukraine: the reform of her defence, her participation in operations on the ground in the Balkans, in Kosovo, controlling arms trafficking, particularly in Africa. There are also challenges vis-à-vis the rule of law. Things must be put in the right order.

THE MINISTER – As regards Ukraine (...) I shall refrain from making forecasts about the time when that country will successfully complete the stages. I understand that the Foreign Minister, Borys Tarasiuk, is saying that he hopes for such and such a date. We want to help that country succeed. We want to support it bilaterally and collectively.

(...)

UN/EU/NATO/JOSCHKA FISCHER

THE MINISTER – No one talked about a meeting between the United States, the European Union and NATO. Frankly I can't see what purpose it would serve. The United States and European Union don't need NATO in order to discuss with each other. (...) And I myself have said that the transatlantic dialogue had a far broader dimension than defence and security issues. The regular dialogue between the European Union and United States will take place between the two shores of the Atlantic. It will be a political dialogue, as you said, like the one we had the other day in Brussels between President Bush and the European Council. In any case, as regards your first point which no one talked about today or yesterday, the three-party discussions, I don't see what purpose they would serve. The United States is in NATO, I can't see what this idea of a dialogue between the United States, NATO and European Union would mean. On the other hand, I see the importance of having a regular ministerial dialogue between the European Union and NATO.

Joschka Fischer is supporting an idea which is already being carried out today, in meetings between ambassadors, once a month, perhaps a little less often. But here the idea is to go a bit further, to do this at ministerial level, and I think it's a good one. It will lead, if I can say this, to properly implementing and using all the tools in the Constitution, to us having an autonomous and complementary capability for decision-making and action. I made a very important point yesterday evening: the precondition, for us, has to be clear respect for the principle of European autonomy of action and decision-making. No one called this principle into question.

Yes, I think it's a good thing for there to be this regular ministerial dialogue between the European Union and NATO. Today, let me say that the European Union is made up of 25 countries (...) and four aren't committed to military alliances – we're going to ask for their opinion too. We aren't deciding on this issue all on our own, we decide together, by consensus. And I'm in favour of this idea. (...)./.