Middle East peace process tests EU’s foreign policy ambition

Date: 09/11/00

As EU foreign ministers prepare for nextweek's Euro-Med summit against the backdrop of more unrest in the Middle East, Simon Taylor assesses whether Europe should be playing a more active role in the peace process

IT MAY be a minor footnote compared to the human tragedies being suffered by the Arabs and Israelis in Jerusalem and the West Bank, but the recent outbreak of violence in the Middle East has exposed the EU's limitations in becoming a powerful player in the region.

At a time when the Palestinians are calling for the Union and other major nations to mediate in future negotiations between the Arabs and the Israelis, the EU is clearly unable to play the same kind of brokering role as the US.

Despite bold claims that the presence of Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana at the emergency peace talks in Sharm el-Sheikh last month marked a breakthrough for the EU's efforts to influence the conflict, its main role in the peace process continues to be as a cash cow to the Palestinian Authority.

Over the last six years, the Union has been by far the biggest bankroller of peace hopes in the region, having provided around €2 billion to the Palestinians since 1994.

As Israeli security forces stepped up their response to demonstrations in Jerusalem and the West Bank and hopes of a negotiated resolution faded, the calls for the EU to play a stronger role in the region grew stronger. Arab nations insist that the time has come to end Washington's monopoly on mediation and have called for global powers such as the Union, Russia and China to join the US in attempting to bring the two sides together.

The most eloquent call for change has come from the Palestinians' chief negotiator in the talks which led to the Oslo peace deal in 1994. Referring to the current role of the US as sole intermediary, Ahmed Qurei said recently: "The old formula cannot be accepted anymore and does not lead to a permanent deal."

And if the voices from the Arab side are not sufficient indication of the desire to see the EU more fully involved, fears are growing within the Union itself that the violence in the West Bank could have geopolitical repercussions, driving oil prices higher and aggravating the risk of a global economic downturn. "It is going to affect everybody for the first time in ten years whereas before, our interest was always seen as philanthropic," said one diplomat working on the EU's contribution to the peace process.

The spiralling crisis also looks like putting paid to the Union's persistent claim that the success of its partnership programme for the Mediterranean region - the Barcelona process - does not depend on the fate of the peace talks.

Some Arab nations are expected to boycott the Euro-Med summit which begins next Wednesday (15 November) as part of moves to sever cooperation with Israel in multinational organisations. If they do, the Union will no longer be able to boast that this is the only international forum where the Israelis are prepared to sit down in the same room as the Syrians.

Discussions on creating a Charter of Peace and Stability, which would promote cooperation to tackle terrorism, have been dropped from the agenda in a bid to convince Arab countries to attend the meeting.

Diplomats point to Solana's presence at October's crisis summit in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh as proof that the Union is beginning to wield the kind of influence its financial commitments in the region warrant.

From the EU's perspective Solana made a difference, coming up with a number of suggestions which the two sides found useful. In a recent speech in Sweden, he said that taking part in the meeting "allowed the European Union for the first time to be actively involved in the search for a solution to the crisis". The Union was there, he argued, because "the parties realised that we could make a new contribution to a process which was on the brink of collapse".

It is hard enough to argue that Sharm el-Sheikh produced a genuine breakthrough in Arab-Israeli relations, with the two sides' main pledge to halt the violence still unfulfilled. The difference that Solana made to what was largely an exercise in reasserting US influence over the two parties is even harder to detect.

Solana himself acknowledged one of the reasons why the EU is unable to bolster its role in the region in his Stockholm speech when he bemoaned the fact that the Union regularly failed to present a united front on foreign policy issues. "If we are to be effective, we have to speak with one voice on this issue elsewhere, including the UN. Otherwise we undermine our own efforts", he said, referring to the recent vote on a resolution expressing concern about Israel's use of force against protestors, in which the UK, Italy and Germany abstained.

But diplomats admit that the EU's difficulties in becoming a credible player at the negotiating table have deeper causes than a lack of unity. Referring to the Norwegian diplomacy which helped produce the 1994 Oslo peace formula, one envoy said: "We are too big to be a Norway. We cannot do things in secret the way they can. Yet at the same time we just do not have as much clout with the Israelis as the US."

Yet some critics say this weakness on the part of the Union is indicative of the current problems besetting the peace talks - the US has lost credibility for now as an even-handed referee, while the Israelis will veto any new partners who they think will not defend their interests. "Israel sees all others apart from the US as ready to support the other side", said one Middle Eastern diplomat.

In any case, say critics, French President Jacques Chirac killed his own ambitions for the EU to become a bigger player in the peace process at an acrimonious meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in September. Diplomats say Chirac's brusque treatment of Barak dashed hopes that Israel could trust the Union to take a balanced view in any future talks. "French attempts to be a potential mediator were destroyed in 24 hours," said one.

Some argue that the EU's back-seat approach has been deliberate, designed to ensure that any peace deal is not undermined by contradictory voices. "After the Camp David summit, the analysis of many member states was that we were not very far off a deal on very difficult questions like the future of Jerusalem and the status of refugees. It was felt that it was important for the Union not to play too active a role which could perturb the process," said one diplomat. But he admitted that strategy might have outlived its usefulness. "Europe must now ask itself that question again," he said.

Officials believe that Israel's lack of confidence in the EU will be demonstrated by the choice of high-level figures to serve on a committee of inquiry which will look into the events surrounding the outbreak of violence in September around the holy site of what the Arabs call Al-Aqsa and the Jews call Temple Mount. While at least one European is expected to be invited to take part, the results of the investigation will be vetted by the US.

Union diplomats argue that despite Israeli distrust towards the EU, the bloc still has a role to play in encouraging the Palestinians and Arab countries to keep faith in the peace process instead of letting hard-liners dictate policy among the West Bank's disaffected citizens.

"Until the US and Israel ask us to join the party, our role is on the sidelines. But there is a useful job to be done on the sidelines convincing the Arabs to stay engaged," said one official.

But unless there are signs soon that ordinary Palestinians have faith in the peace process, the Union may question the wisd om of continuing to pour billions of euro into the region to boost Palestinian living standards when the fundamental issue affecting their well-being - the lack of a lasting settlement with Israel - has yet to be resolved.

As EU foreign ministers prepare for the forthcoming Euro-Med summit against the backdrop of more unrest in the Middle East, author assesses whether Europe should be playing a more active role in the peace process.