EU moves to assert itself with bold initiative on Middle East

THIS summit was billed as more predictable than most. EU leaders would have an informal discussion about the important but rather technical matter of the Union's Inter Governmental Conference. There would be no formal decisions, no communique, and everybody would go home again.

It ended instead with a most dramatic gesture, with Dick Spring on an early flight to Israel. In addition, the heads of state and governments decided to appoint, later this month, a special EU envoy to an as yet unspecified role in the region.

A head of steam built up during the day over the perceived exclusion - by the US and Israel - of the EU from talks about the latest Israeli/Palestinian crisis. The dispatch of Mr Spring, and the decision to appoint a long term envoy to represent EU interests are designed to signal that Europe wants to be politically involved.

The decisions were helped by the belief of many member states that if the EU didn't act collectively, some member states - the most likely being France - would get involved unilaterally. Such individual action is seen by other member states as undermining efforts to build an EU Common Foreign and Security Policy.

The Irish were initially among the sceptics about such a grand gesture. What if Mr Netanyahu decided not to meet Mr Spring? Why should he land in the middle of talks that most people believe are going nowhere, and perhaps take some of the blame for the failure? Why annoy the Americans before a presidential election?

As the day went on, diplomats ascertained that both the US Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, would meet Mr Spring if he went. During the afternoon a frosty message arrived in Dublin from Mr Christopher. The EU was welcome to assist in efforts' to make progress in the Middle East. One observer suggested this meant "we're still running the show, you can help out if you like."

Europe is already helping out considerably. The EU is by far the major donor to Palestinian reconstruction. £397.8 million has been earmarked to support economic reconstruction in the West Bank and Gaza from 1994 to 1998. The Union has also contributed significantly to the reduction of the Palestinian Authority's budget deficit.

More than half of Israel's trade is with the EU. It has never been matched by political influence. While Europe pays the piper, the US has the most clout in calling the tune.

The US is the power broker in the Middle East, a fact recognised by EU member states. France, however, has a tradition of political engagement, while Italy has traditionally warm relations with the Palestinians. Palestinians and the Arab world are keen to see EU political involvement in the region, to counterbalance what they see as the pro Israeli US influence.

Europeans were deeply annoyed last week when President Clinton did not invite them to the hastily convened White House meeting involving himself, Mr Netanyahu, the Palestinian President, Mr Yasser Arafat, and King Hussein of Jordan. US/EU differences in political approach to the Middle East were always understated, but last week changed all that.

Last Tuesday the European Union surprised observers - long used to bland EU foreign policy statements - by issuing a strong statement on the crisis in the Middle East peace process. The blame for the recent violence which resulted in the deaths of 60 Palestinians and 15 Israelis was placed largely with Israel.

The Jerusalem tunnel, the opening of which sparked off the violence, should be closed, the EU said. Israeli troops should pull out of the key town of Hebron; Palestinian prisoners should be released; the embargo on financial aid and infrastructure projects in Palestinian areas should be lifted; and full Israeli/Palestinian security co operation should be resumed.

Such robust demands on Israel - are notably absent from the US dealings with Israel. Mr Netanyahu was able to leave the White House last week without saying he would close the tunnel, or agree a date for withdrawal of his troops from Hebron, or move his tanks back from the boundary of Mr Arafat's territory, or end the closures of the borders between Israel and Palestinian areas. He wouldn't even accept President Clinton's invitation to speak at the press conference.

The US presidential election is a month away, and the Jewish vote is important. A tough US approach with Israel at this time is as unlikely as a surprise pre election tax increase.

Not surprisingly, Israel favours US involvement in the attempts to resolve the crisis, and is unenthusiastic about the idea of an EU political role. An unnamed Israeli official was quoted yesterday as dismissing EU diplomacy as "lacking effectiveness and unity, as was proven in the Bosnian tragedy."

The inactivity of Europe as Bosnia was dismembered by force is providing a major impetus to those who want a more coherent and effective EU foreign policy. Last month Mr Netanyahu chipped in with his own dismissal of European political involvement, opining that he was "not sure that the European Union is really equipped with a joint foreign policy that is well thought out and coherent." Yesterday was an attempt to begin to change that.

Not all EU member states were enthusiastic about this very public raising of Europe's voice. For example, the Belgian Foreign Minister, Mr Erik Derycke, pointed out afterwards that Israel was already unhappy with the EU over Tuesday's strongly worded statement which had "put us in a very difficult and uncomfortable situation".

The Palestinians have welcomed Mr Spring's visit and the decision to appoint an EU envoy. The job to be done by this envoy is not yet clear. But officials pointed to the level of EU financial aid to the region, and suggested that, in the first instance, the appointee would monitor the spending of this money.

The EU's foreign ministers are to agree the role and identity of the envoy by the end of this month. They have requested a report on how EU money is spent in the region before making that decision. It could be inferred therefore that the EU now believes there should be a relationship between the money it spends in the region and the level of political input it has.

The envoy is expected to be a senior political figure of the stature on, say, the former Spanish prime minister, Mr Felipe Gonzalez, or the former EU Commission president, Mr Jacques Delors.

Mr Spring was not in Israel last night trying to become a high powered mediator. According to the Taoiseach, Mr Bruton, his aim is to impress on both sides the need to "accelerate the peace process and avoid any confrontation that might conflict with it".

Mr Spring's arrival coincided with the opening of Israeli/Palestinian talks last night on the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Hebron, one of the key moves provided for in the Oslo and Madrid peace accords. The date for withdrawal has passed, and Israel wants firm security guarantees for the small number of Israelis living there before agreeing a withdrawal date.

Warren Christopher was due to meet Mr Netanyahu and Mr Arafat in advance of those talks. Mr Spring's role, however, involves no direct involvement in those discussions. His main function was to deliver the EU's message that it wanted to see progress in the peace process, and to remind all the parties of the level of EU aid.

In other words his role is to insist F.that the EU should be taken more seriously. To that end Mr Spring met Mr Christopher and Mr Netanyahu and was due to see Mr Arafat.

The link between European economic interests and progress in the Middle East peace process is underlined by a series of meetings in Brussels this week between Arab and European officials. The Europeans and their eight Arab partners' - Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Tunisia and Syria - are to discuss the extension of EuroMediterranean co operation.

The Euro Mediterranean partnership comprises the 15 European Union countries, the eight Arab states and Cyprus, Israel, Malta and Turkey. At a conference in Barcelona last November, these states decided in principle to create a free trade zone by 2010.

But Mr Fat hi al Shazli, Egypt's junior foreign affairs minister who has responsibility for Europe, yesterday firmly linked the future of Euro Mediterranean cooperation - including Israel - to progress in the Middle East peace process.

Movement towards a free trade area cannot happen "because there is no trust between the parties involved in the Middle East peace process, he said. "This is a clear message from the Arab countries to Europe."

In other words, no progress in the peace process may mean no free trade area. For Europe, economic aid without political engagement may no longer be possible.