SG: Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. The Secretary of State and I have had a very good discussion this morning. As you can imagine, we have reassessed the security situation in Iraq and he brought me the condolences and sympathy of the US administration for what happened to the UN headquarters and the UN personnel, and we have had a chance to review what needs to be done to strengthen our security and to continue our operations.

We also talked about Monrovia, where things seem to be moving. We are making progress, both on the political and the military front, and we hope that in the not-too-distant future we will be making even greater strides.

We reviewed the situation in the Middle East and the need to ensure that the parties stay on track with the implementation of the Road Map. We also discussed other UN-related issues. I will let the Secretary say a few words.

[Secretary Powell made an introductory statement and answered questions]

Q: Are you comfortable with the idea of expanding the UN mandate in Iraq, sir? And how difficult to get a consensus in the Security Council after the bitter legacy of this past winter?

SG: I think the issue of Iraq is of great concern to everybody, regardless of the conditions that existed before the war. There are many who were against the war, who are now coming together to help stabilize Iraq, and I think the stability of Iraq should be in everyone's interest. And this is why I would want to see everyone come together to help to stabilize Iraq and the region. I think the question of the UN mandate and the UN role –we have focussed on the economic and political and reconstruction, and on the question of the security we have no intention of recommending UN Blue Helmets. So really, it is either a multinational force that oversees the security arrangements, with the UN focussing on the economic, political and social areas where we do our best work, including the [humanitarian.]

Q: Do you see a consensus in the Security Council, given what happened over the winter?

SG: I think it is possible. I think it is possible to get a consensus, but it will take work, it will take consultations and negotiations, but I will not exclude it. I think, as I said, yes, there were divisions last winter, there were divisions before the war, but we all realize it is urgent to help bring peace to Iraq, bring peace to the region. And an Iraq that is destabilized, an Iraq that is in chaos, is not in the interest of the region or the world, and we do have a responsibility to ensure that.

Q: How risky do you think is it for the United Nations to be perceived in the Middle East as to be either too close to, or identified with the United States? …

SG: Let me say that the UN, obviously, is its Member States. The United Nations has to work with all the Member States, including the US, and I think one has to be careful not to confuse the UN with the US. The US has its policy and the UN has its policy. I think this was demonstrated very clearly in the Spring, in the discussions leading to Iraq. Most people forget that the [Security] Council did not vote to support the war in Iraq. The Council took a different position, and the UN, working with the other Member States, including the US, has been able to get quite a lot done. In Iraq, as we speak today, Sergio [Vieira] de Mello acted under the Security Council mandate and had an independent mandate, even though he cooperated very effectively with Mr. [L. Paul] Bremer. But the UN mandate was clear and what Mr. Bremer's mandate was was also clear, but they did cooperate. And I think even the Iraqis will tell you that they did see the difference, that even though they were cooperating, they were two separate organizations, as it were.