International   

E.U. settles for 'compromise' on Iraq

By Amit Baruah

ATHENS April 17. The European Union may have agreed that the United Nations must play a "central role" in Iraq but the definition of the role itself will be the subject of hard negotiations among the "permanent five" in the Security Council.

Taking a compromise stance, the E.U. statement today did not refer to the United States or Britain nor did it express regret for the tens of hundreds of civilian deaths and injuries in Iraq. The statement, which followed a flurry of meetings here, indicated that both France and Germany were in a softer mode; not keen on being left out of the "reconstruction" of Iraq or take their differences with the U.S. and the U.K. beyond a point. This, in turn, could facilitate Security Council negotiations on Iraq.

The E.U. statement came as the U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, warned at the European Conference (an EU plus other European nations session) that no issue had "so divided" the world since the end of the Cold War as Iraq. "It is vital that we heal that division now... What we can, and must, do is to define a set of principles and objectives around which all of us can rally, and then move forward," he said.

Referring to the terrible suffering of the people, Mr. Annan said the "coalition", as the "occupying power", must give top priority to fulfilling its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague regulations. "For our part, we at the United Nations have already begun to assume our essential humanitarian role. We will do whatever we can to assist the American people, in an independent and impartial manner," he said.

"Other, more fundamental measures will have much greater legitimacy if they are carried out by the Iraqi people themselves — which means they can only be undertaken when the time is ripe," he added. Mr. Annan, it would appear, was referring to U.S. plans to put in place an Iraqi Government of its choice. But he chose to refer to the issue indirectly, a sign of the pressures he faces.

For its part, the E.U. statement said the central role for the U.N. must include a process leading to self-government in Iraq. "The E.U. welcomes the appointment by the U.N. Secretary-General of a special adviser on Iraq and looks forward to a further strengthening of the U.N.'s involvement in post-conflict Iraq... "

"At this stage, the coalition has the responsibility to ensure a secure environment, including for the provision of humanitarian assistance and the protection of humanitarian assistance and the protection of the cultural heritage and museums." "As part of the process of regional security and stability the E.U. reaffirms its commitment to bring the Israeli/Palestinian peace process to a successful conclusion... " it added.

The E.U. announced that it would set up an "air bridge" to fly wounded Iraqi children out — either to neighbouring countries or to hospitals in Europe — as a tangible measure of its commitment to play a role in the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq.

Providing his assessment, the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, told presspersons: "What we are doing is talking about the new Iraq. We are trying to put behind us the questions about whether or not the coalition should have taken military action."

In the meantime, three E.U. members, Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain, said they might send peace-keeping troops to Iraq. Poland and three Baltic states are said to have similar plans.

The E.U. may have agreed to a compromise — a watered-down statement — but the differences are real. The decision of these American supporters of the Iraqi war to act outside the ambit of the E.U. statement (in that no "central" role for the U.N. has yet been defined) is an indicator that the differences have simply been papered over. However, these countries and leaders are well-versed in the art of negotiations and compromise.

The Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, too, has favoured a strong role for the U.N. in Iraq — a role that, in all likelihood, can only be defined by negotiations between the P-5 in New York. Interactions in Athens could have set the tone for a larger compromise between the U.S. and the U.K., on the one side, and their European allies, on the other.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

International

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Science & Tech | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• U.S. for lifting U.N. sanctions
• Shia clerics filling power void
• Powell to visit Syria soon for `candid talks'
• E.U. settles for 'compromise' on Iraq
• N. Ireland: U.K. forces colluded with loyalists?
• Pope's concern over unacceptable practices
• Woomera detention centre closed
• Abu Abbas arrest: Just a hype?
• SARS `spread' through sewage pipes
• Trade, investment to dominate Lanka-Bangla talks
• China's hand behind meet on North Korea
• Russia denies additional screening for Indians
• Pak. dismayed at burning of Baghdad library

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu