WRITTEN QUESTION E-2324/98

by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Council

(28 July 1998)

Subject: Peace process in the Middle East

1. How does the Council assess the prospects for achieving peace in the next two years between Israel and its neighbours?

2. Is the European Union still of the opinion that only a return by Israel of the territories occupied since 1967 or 1982 on the West Bank, the Golan Heights and in southern Lebanon can lead to a lasting peace with its Arab neighbours?

3. How can the EU support the peace process more effectively than in the past? What is an appropriate role for it alongside the USA?

4. Does the Council intend to extend the mandate of the special envoy for the peace process? How much has this mandate cost the European tax payer since its start in early 1997? Are these costs reasonable in terms of the results achieved and what concrete results have been achieved in the last two years?

Reply

(9 November 1998)

If all concerned show courage, vision and the necessary political will, a just and lasting peace in the Middle East is certainly within reach. This is the case both in the Palestinian and the Syrian and Lebanese track. It is the opinion of the Council that in order to be lasting, any settlement between the parties has to be based on the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and the principles agreed at Madrid and Oslo, including the full implementation of existing commitments. Consequently, the Council considers the principle of "land for peace" to be a cornerstone of peace in the Middle East. The conclusions of the last two years' European Council meetings and the numerous Council declarations on the Peace Process in the same period clearly underline the Council's position on the issue.

The Council recognizes the crucial overall role of the United States in the Peace Process. It also considers the ongoing US mediating efforts as having the best chances of breaking the deadlock between Israel and the Palestinians. Accordingly, it has adopted a supporting, complementary role to that of the US. Whatever the outcome of the US mediating efforts will be, Washington will remain the most important external factor in the Peace Process. Consequently, close co-operation and co-ordination with the US will continue to be an important feature of EU involvement and will in itself contribute to the effectiveness of the Union's efforts.

In parallel to its support for, and complementary to the US initiative, the EU has played a distinct and positive role of its own to bring the Peace Process forward. The substantial economic and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians, the dialogue with Israel on the Palestinian economy, the establishment of an EU/Palestinian Security Cooperation and preliminary work on specific input into Final Status issues like water and refugees are just some examples of EU action during the last year.

Ambassador Moratinos was nominated through a Joint Action which entered into force on 25 November 1996. The budget allocated to the office of the Special Envoy was ECU 2 137 million for the period 25 November 1996-25 November 1997 and ECU 2 051 million for the period 25 November 1997-25 November 1998. The Commission is responsible for the execution of the budget.

The nomination of a Special EU Envoy for the Middle East Peace Process has undoubtedly contributed to enhancing the EU's role in the Process. Ambassador Moratinos is respected as a valued interlocutor by all parties to the Peace Process and as such he has introduced ideas, concepts and proposals to help the parties overcome their difficulties. The presence of a roving envoy able to devote his energy and skill fully to the Peace Process means that the Union has become more present in the Process than before. It is an important conduit for bringing the Union's views and positions to bear in the region and enhances the Council's staying appraised of the thinking of the decision makers in the region. The Special Envoy has furthermore strongly enhanced the visibility of the EU in the Peace Process.

Therefore, it is the intention of the Presidency to suggest to the Council to formally extend the mandate of the Special Envoy beyond November 1998.