WRITTEN QUESTION E-0633/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(4 March 2003)

Subject: Kosovo, Iraq and the authority of the UN Security Council

On 18 February 2003 at a Meeting of the Conference of Presidents open to all Members of the European Parliament, Mr Costas Simitis, the Greek Prime-Minister, while explaining the Conclusions of the European Council of the previous day, contrasted the situation in Iraq with the situation in Kosovo where he suggested that the use of force had been authorised by the United Nations.

In fact, although Resolution 1203 (October 1998) demanded compliance by Yugoslavia and the Kosovan Liberation Army with the terms of Resolution 1199, and also that both parties co-operate with international efforts to improve the humanitarian situation and avert humanitarian catastrophe, none of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Kosovo (1160, 1199, 1203 or 1239) which preceded NATO's bombing of The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia authorised the use of force. Despite this lack of authorisation, the bombing of Yugoslavia was supported by all EU Member States, as well as many of those most critical of the current American administration's stance over Iraq, despite the far greater scale of humanitarian tragedy that has afflicted Iraq over the last twenty years as well as the much greater threat posed by the regime to neighbouring states.

Was Mr Simitis speaking on behalf of the Council when he made this comparison, and, if so, to which UN Resolution was he referring? Were Mr Simitis' remarks intended as a criticism of the Bush administration's approach to the United Nations? If so, would the Council accept that although Secretary Albright's response to the impending conflict in Kosovo was to effectively ignore the Security Council and instead try to impose her own solution at Rambouillet, (such that a contributor to The New York Times was able to write in March, 1999: In Kosovo, the Security Council has been sidelined as NATO has essentially taken over management of the conflict and efforts to find a solution. Any peacekeeping operation there would be run by NATO, as well as any decision to use force. Although some European nations want the Security Council to have a say, it has been cut out of any such role, primarily by the United States.) Secretary Powell, by contrast, has been assiduous in his efforts to involve the United Nations and to persuade it to discharge its responsibilities in disarming Iraq as demanded by both the Security Council and the European Union?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The question raised by the Honourable Member of the European Parliament about similarities or differences between the Kosovo and the Iraqi crisis and the way in which the US responded to them in the Security Council has not been debated by the Council.

As to the European Council conclusions of 17 February, which the Presidency presented to the European Parliament on 18 February, and which the Honourable Parliamentarian refers to, the European Council committed itself to the UN remaining the centre of international order. It also recognised that the primary responsibility for dealing with Iraqi disarmament lies with the Security Council.

On 21 March, the European Council again discussed Iraq. It noted that with the beginning of the military conflict, it faced a new situation. The European Council expressed the hope that the conflict would end with the minimum loss of human life and suffering and committed itself to be actively involved in humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. The proposal by General Secretary Kofi Annan that the humanitarian needs can continue to be met by the UN's Oil for Food programme was supported by the Council. The Council furthermore expressed the belief that the UN must continue to play a central role during and after the current crisis and it reiterated its commitment to the fundamental role of the UN in the international system and to the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and stability.